JUDGMENT M. Katju, A.C.J. and S. Ambwani, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 22.11.2000, and 27.1.2001, Annexures-8 and 10 to the writ petition, by which the respondents have refused to renew the licence to the petitioner to run the Saw Mill on the ground that the petitioner was not issued a licence, and that by order dated 4.3.1997, passed by the Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, JT 1997 (3) SC 338, the Supreme Court has restrained the State to issue fresh licences. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus to issue 'No Objection Certificate', and to issue licence to the petitioner within a reasonable time.
3. The question of grant and renewal of licence to run saw mills in the State of U.P., was considered by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, JT 1997 (3) SC 338. The Supreme Court directed closure of all unlicensed saw mills in the States of Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. The State Government amended the U.P. Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978, by the U.P. Establishment and Saw Mills Regulation (2nd Amendment) Rules, 1998. These amendments provided that no licence will be required to the saw mills run by the power less than 3 H.P. and for deemed licence where the application for the grant of licence was not dealt with in the Saw Mill Rules being Rule No. 7. The Supreme Court vide its order dated 29th April, 2002 in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, (2002) 9 SCC 502, declared, these Rules to be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Indian Forest Act and the orders issued by it.
4. In the present case the petitioner did not have a valid licence. It is stand in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter-affidavit of Sri Jyotir Moy Banerjee, Forest Range Officer, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, that the petitioner never had 'No Objection Certificate' sufficient for grant of licence. The application had to be accompanied with the No Objection Certificate'. As the application of the petitioner was incomplete, the Divisional Forest Officer could not take any action.
5. The petitioner has not denied the fact that he did not hold a valid Hcence. In Jawahar Lal Sharma v. D.F.O., JT 2002 (1) SC 413, the Supreme Court further clarified that only those licencess could be renewed which were existing on the date of its order dated 4.3.1997. The writ petition is dismissed.