JUDGMENT D. P. Mohapatra, C.J. and S. R. Singh, J.
1. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.3.1997 of Divisional Forest Officer /Divisional Director, Social Forestry Division, Allahabad and for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue a license of Saw Mill In favour of the petitioner, By order impugned in the writ petition, the petitioner has been directed to close down her unlicensed Saw Mill forthwith. The order purports to have been issued in compliance of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 4.3.1997 rendered in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995, T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and others, which is reported in JT 1997 (3) SC 338.
2. We have heard Sri S. D. Kautilya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the opposite parties.
3. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Supreme Court decision in the case referred to above was not attracted to the facts of the present case inasmuch as urged the learned counsel, the petitioner had already deposited license fee, etc. on 2.3.1997, that is to say, before the judgment of the Supreme Court on the basis of which impugned order has been issued and the issuance of actual license after the petitioner deposited license fee, etc. was mere clerical formality and the license, if issued, would relate back to the date on which license fee was deposited and other formalities completed. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced inasmuch as mere deposit of license fee would not make the petitioner a licensee nor would it amount to grant of license within the meaning of Rule 5 of the U. P. Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules, 1978 (in short 'the Rules'). The Court is of the considered view that making of an application and deposit of license fee are but steps towards obtaining a license in that Rule 5 of the Rules specifically visualizes that on receipt of an application under Rule 4, the Divisional Forest Officer shall acknowledge the same and thereafter shall make such enquiries as he may deem fit and after satisfying himself with regard to the facts enumerated In the Rules, grant the license in the form given in Schedule II appended to the Rules. Rule 7 provides for renewal of the license granted under Rule 5. The court is also of the opinion that renewal of license under Rule 7 is tantamount to grant of license under Rule 5 of the Rules. The fact that Rule 9 enjoins a duty upon the concerned Divisional Officer to send an intimation to the applicant in case the application for grant of renewal of license is refused, does not lead to an inference that If the refusal is not intimated, the license would be deemed to have been automatically granted with effect from the date the application is moved and license fee deposited. The petitioner has not filed an order to show that license was granted in her favour before the relevant date, i.e., 4.3.1997, where after no license could be issued in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, relevant portion of which reads as under:
"All unlicensed Saw Mill, veneer and plywood industries in the State of Maharashtra and the State of Uttar Pradesh are to be closed forthwith and the State Government would not remove or relax the condition for grant of permission /license for the opening of any such Saw Mill, veneer and plywood industry and it shall also not grant any fresh permission/license for this purpose. The Chief Secretary of the State will ensure strict compliance of this direction and file a compliance report within two weeks."
4. The impugned order also Indicates that it was a case of unlicensed Saw Mill. It may be apt to observe that deposit of license fee and completion of other formalities may entitle the applicant for grant or renewal of license but since no order granting license was issued prior to 4.3.1997, injunction issued by the Apex Court in the case referred to above would operate and we are of the considered view that the impugned order Is well In consonance with the direction issued by the Supreme Court In the case referred to above and warrants no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. The writ petition Is devoid of merit. Accordingly. It is dismissed In limine.