The petitioner has prayed for below mentioned relief in present petition:- “7(B) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a appropriate writ order or direction in the form of Mandamus or Certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quashing and setting aside the illegal order passed by the Respondents dtd 23/4/2009 and order dtd 1/2/2011.”
2. Mr. Pandit, learned advocate, has appeared for the petitioner. Mr. Pandit, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order dated 23.4.2009 and order dated 1.2.2011 passed by the respondents are unjustified and arbitrary. He also submitted that the respondent authorities have failed to appreciate relevant factual aspect that the machinery of the petitioner was not mortgaged and/or it was not transferred or sold to Mr. Parekh, as observed in the impugned orders. He submitted that the respondent authorities have examined the matter by misconstruing the facts and material available on record before the authorities. He also submitted that the respondent authorities may be directed to renew the licence which was originally granted to the petitioner inasmuch as, the petitioner is not guilty of any irregularity.
3. In response to the notice, the respondents have entered appearance and resisted the petition by filing reply affidavit. The respondents have, inter alia, submitted that:-
“5. I say and submit that, the present petition is filed challenging the decision of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest i.e. respondent No.2 herein dated 01.02.2011. It is pertinent to note that, by way of the aforesaid order, appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 23.04.2009 based upon the report of Gujarat Committee for Wood Based Industries (WBI), is rejected.
6. I say and submit that the present petitioner was granted license for running 'Saw Mills' being License No.25. It is pertinent to note that, the aforesaid license was granted in thename of “Bharat Saw Mill” situated at Sanjan, Tal.: Umargam,Valsad.
8. I say and submit that, petitioner had breached the Bombay Forest (Gujarat Amendment) Rules, 2006, bynot informing the respondent authorities of selling the plot being Plot No.1515, G.I.D.C., Umargam nor the rent deed/agreement.
It is also important to note that, the petitioner had allowed Mr. Sanjeev H. Parekh to use his license unauthorizedly without even informing the licensing authority. It is pertinent to note that, the present petitioner preferred an application for change in name and the place of his business to the deponent herein, on 10.02.2999. It is pertinent to note that, by way of the aforesaid application, the present petitioner wanted to change the name from “Bharat Saw Mill” to “Parekh Woods Industries” and also the place of business from Sanjan to G.I.D.C. Plot No.1515 situated at Umargam,Valsad. It is pertinent to note that, the present deponent had granted the application vide its order dated 10.05.2000.
9. I say and submit that, the present petitioner was sold and transferred the plot i.e. G.I.D.C. Plot No.1515 to one Shri Sanjeev H. Parekh Proprietor of “Parekh Woods Industries” on 06.07.1999. It is pertinent to note that, the order to that effect was passed by G.I.D.C., Vapi on 06.07.1999. A copy of the order dated 06.07.1999 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R-I to this Affidavit in Reply.
10. I say and submit that, thus from the aforesaid letter of G.I.D.C., it is clear that, the day on which the permission was granted by the office of the deponent to the present petitioner to transfer his Saw Mill License of Plot No.1515 G.I.D.C. The present petitioner was not the owner of the said Plot No.1515, G.I.D.C., Umargam. I say and submit that, the present petitioner entered into rent agreement with Shri Sanjeev Parekh, Proprietor of M/s. Parekh Wood Industries, on 11.07.2001, which is already annexed with the Petition. It is pertinent to note that, Shri Sanjeev Parekh was possessing the license being License No.80 issued in the name and style of M/s. Parekh Wood Industries for running Plywood Unit at G.I.D.C. Plot No.1515, Umargam.
11. I say and submit that, above facts of either selling Plot No.1515 to Mr. Sanjeev H. Parekh or entering the rent agreement with him dated 11.07.2001 was never informed to the authorities by the present petitioner.
12. I say and submit that, Shri Sanjeev H. Parekh entered into a Loan Agreement with Gujarat State Financial Corporation (G.S.F.C.) and hypothecated land of Plot No.1515 including building and machinery which were situated at Plot No.1515, G.I.D.C. Umargam. It is pertinent to note that, hypothecation deed was entered into between the G.S.F.C. And Mr. Sanjeev H. Parekh, on 03.08.1999. A copy of the hypothecation deed dated 03.08.1999 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R-II to this Affidavit in Reply.
13. I say and submit that, as Shri Sanjeev H. Parekh could not paid the loan of G.S.F.C. G.S.F.C. Has taken over the possession of land bearing Plot No.1515, including building and machinery on 17.11.2005. It is pertinent to note that, from the Panchnama which was drawn by G.S.F.C. On 17.11.2005, possession is taken of land and building including machinery which was there on Plot No.1515, G.I.D.C. Umargam.
It is important to note that, from the aforesaid Panchnama it is clear that the machineries which were being seized by G.S.F.C. includes machinery of the present petitioner who was running a Saw Mill. A copy of the list of machinery which was seized by the G.S.F.C. is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R-III to this affidavit in Reply.
14. I say and submit that, the G.S.F.C. had auctioned the hypothetical Plot including building and machinery, which was sold to M/s. Aditya Timbers on 23.11.23006. I submit that, M/s. Aditya Timbers had taken possession of the Plot No.1515, including building and machinery from the G.S.F.C. on 28.03.2007.”
3.1 It is in light of the facts stated in the reply affidavit and on the strength of the document at Annexure – R-V and R-VI (page 139 and 140), the respondents have contended that the petitioner has acted with malafide intention and has illegally and unauthorizedly transfer the licence and the undertaking as well as the machinery and that therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for renewal of licence.
4. At this stage, it is necessary to take into account below mentioned observations in the order dated 23.4.2009, i.e. the order which is challenged in present petition. The competent authority has, while passing the said order observed that:-
“5. Considering the records, the entire available machinery on Plot No.1515 can be categorized into two parts: (a) Machinery hypothecated to GSFC and confiscated by GSFC (b) Machinery not hypothecated to GSFC and confiscated by GSFC.
6. All machinery, hypothecated and non hypothecated, along with plot No.1515, was taken possession of by GSFC on 17.11.2005 and sealed. Hypothecated machinery along with plot No.1515 was subsequently sold out by GSFC to M/s. Aditya Timbers of Gandevi, Navsari on 23.11.2006 and the same was taken possession by the party on 28/03/2007. The remaining non hypothecated machinery was handed over by GSFC on 23/04/2007 to Mr. Yogesh V. Mehta of Umargam as per the affidavit dated 31.03.2006 filed by Mr. Yogesh V. Mehta and Mr. Sanjeev H. Parekh individually and separately and accepted by GSFC.
7. The entire machinery operating on Plot No.1515, including the machinery covered under license No.25, had either been transferred to M/s. Aditya Timbers of Gandevi on 28/03.2007 by GSFC, or had been handed over to Mr. Yogesh V. Mehta of Umargam by the GSFC in presence of Mr. Sanjeev H. Parekh on the basis of the affidavit filed by Mr. Yogesh V. Mehta and Mr. Sanjeev H. Parekh on 23.04.2007.
8. Considering the facts above, it is clear that the GIDC, Umargam, Plot No.1515 was not having either saw mill machinery or pasting pressing machinery or any other machinery on 17.11.2005 which Mr. Sanjeev H. Parekh can claim to be in his possession thereof, a fact which was deliberately concealed by Mr. Sanjeev H. Parekh from the Forest Department and also concealed from the Gujarat Committee for WBI.
9. No permission was taken from the Forest Department nor the Forest Department was informed under the prevailing saw mill rules when the machinery under license No.25 was being used by Mr. Sanjeev H. Parekh or was hypothecated to GSFC by Mr. Sanjeev H. Parekh or when any of the machinery was removed from the premises of plot no.1515 by Mr. Sanjeev H. Parekh or Mr. Yogesh V. Mehta at any point of time.”
5. From the facts in the said order, it emerges that plot No.1515 in respect of which the petitioner had requested for licence / renewal of licence was at the time of inspection not having either saw mill machinery or pasting pressing machinery or any other machinery. It is also mentioned that several material and relevant facts were deliberately concealed by the petitioner. It also emerges from the record that there are violation of Forest Law inasmuch as any permission from Forest Department was not obtained.
5.1 It also emerges from the record and submission by learned counsel for the contesting parties that the petitioner was granted licence No.25 for running a saw mill, in 1964. The petitioner has claimed that the said licence came to be renewed from time to time. When the said licence was granted, the saw mill was, according to the petitioner's submission, situate at Sanjan, and the licence was issued in name of Bharat Saw Mill. The petitioner has claimed that, subsequently, he shifted his business/said saw mill from Sanjan to GIDC Plot No.1515 at Umargam and thereafter, he made application seeking permission for transfer of place of business and also for change of name. The petitioner has also claimed that the authorities had renewed licence for the period from January-2008 to December-2012. It is also claimed by the petitioner that after shifting the business to GIDC Plot No.1515, the petitioner was running business on said plot on rented basis and the Rent-Deed was executed by the petitioner along with Mr. S.H.Parekh who was taken in the business as co-owner. It appears that said Mr. Parekh is also a proprietor of another business, in the name and style of, Prop. Sanjeev H. Parekh pasting unit and is also proprietor of M/s. Parekh Wood Industries. It appears that said Mr. Parekh defaulted in making payments to Gujarat State Financial Corporation and that therefore, the said plot, the industrial shed, the machinery, etc. came to be seized and taken into custody of Gujarat State Financial Corporation and was subsequently, put up for auction sale. It also emerges from the details mentioned by the petitioner that one M/s. Aditya Timbers also entered into entire transaction, inasmuch as said Mr. Parekh transferred his licence in name of said M/s. Aditya Timbers. It also emerges from the record that said Mr. S.H.Parekh had taken out a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2845 of 2008, which came to be disposed of by order dated 6.8.2008. Subsequently, the respondent authorities issued notice dated 29.11.2008 to the petitioner and thereafter, passed order dated 23.4.2009, which is impugned in present petition.
The aspect which is relevant for the purpose of present petition is that the petitioner had, according to the respondents, never informed any details to the respondent authorities before shifting his unit from Sanjan to GIDC, Plot No.1515, Umargam and/or inducting said Mr. Parekh in his business and/or about the actions by Gujarat State Financial Corporation of taking custody of plants, machinery, etc.
In this background, and uninformed about the details, when the respondent authorities received petitioner's application for renewal of licence and when the respondent authorities visited the site for inspection and verification, it was noticed by the respondent authorities that entire machinery, shed, etc. was shifted and nothing was available at the site for which licence was issued. Consequently, the respondent authorities initiated proceedings and actions against the petitioner, as a result of which, the impugned order came to be passed.
6. Thus, on consideration of the said order, it appears that the competent authority has taken into account the relevant aspects and the order does not suffer from any infirmity. The order also cannot be considered as unreasoned or non- speaking order. The relevant facts are taken into account. The order also reflects process of reasoning and the conclusion are based on the facts as well as material on record.
7. Mr. Pandit, learned advocate for the petitioner, except making the aforesaid submission, could not make out any case to support the contention that the impugned order is contrary to facts or contrary to the evidence obtaining on record before the authority. He could also not demonstrate any error or infirmity in the order. On the contrary, it has emerged from the record that the petitioner had conducted its activity in manner contrary to the terms and conditions of the licence and that therefore, the action of the respondent authority was justified. It is not possible to find any infirmity or illegality or arbitrariness in the said order.
On overall consideration of the facts and circumstances, present petition does not deserve to be entertained and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.
kdc (K.M.Thaker, J.)