M/S. Tarama Saw Mill And Another vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Rajasekhar Mantha, J

The petitioner no. 2 claims to be the proprietor of one Tarama Saw Mill. He also claims in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that the land on which the Saw Mill exists was purchased by him.

The Saw Mill has been getting a licence from the Forest Authorities in the name and style of Tarama Saw Mill since 2002. One Gopal Hati being the respondent no. 5 who is the brother of the petitioner no. 2 claims that there was a partnership deed entered into by the petitioner no. 2 with him and the business was continuing in partnership post issuance of lincence by the Forest Authorities.

Disputes and differences cropped up between the petitioner no. 2 and the respondent no. 5 in respect of the said partnership business which the parties state has been dissolved. A family partition suit is also pending, inter alia, between the petitioner no. 2 and the private respondent of which the petitioner no. 2 denies any knowledge.

The short issue in the writ petition is inaction on the part of the Forest Authorities to renew the forest licence applied for by the petitioner no. 2.

The Authorities pursuant to an order passed by this Court, renewed the licence in the joint name of the petitioner 2 and the 5th respondent as partners. The said order was set aside by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 23rd August, 2018 in W. P. No. 24162(W) of 2015 since it was submitted by the petitioner no. 2 therein that the partnership business has come to an end. The 5th espondent has not initiated any formal proceedings for claiming accounts or profits out of the said partnership business till date. The petitioner no. 2 submits that there was no partnership in the first place that could be recognised in the law.

Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that concerns and claims of the private respondent, if sustainable in law, inter alia the law of limitation, may be agitated in proceedings that may be either initiated or pending in accordance with law. The said pending disputes between the petitioner no. 2 and the private respondent no. 5 cannot prevent the petitioner no. 2 from applying before the Forest Official for renewal of the Saw Mill licence, if he satisfies the criteria therefor.

In those circumstances, without interfering with any rights that the private respondent may have against the petitioner no. 2 or any alleged partnership with the private respondent no. 5 asserts against the petitioner no. 2, the District Forest Official shall consider the petitioner no. 2 Sri Dilip Kumar Hati's application for renewal of forest lincence in his individual name.

Let the petitioner no. 2 make such application for renewal of licence within a period of ten days from date, if not already made.

Upon receipt of a copy of this order, the concerned respondent no.4 being the Divisional Forest Officer, Bankura shall consider such application for renewal of licence in accordance with law in the exclusive name of the petitioner no. 2 and dispose of the same within a period of one month thereof.

Since the 5th respondent claims that the land on which the Saw Mill exists, is owned by him, the D. F. O. shall be entitled to receive any objection from the 5th respondent and decide the said question. The D. F. O. shall also be entitled to obtain appropriate opinion and/or views of the concerned BLLRO as regards title of the land-in-question.

For the aforesaid purpose, the 5th respondent shall be notified by the D. F. O. and shall be given due personal hearing along with the petitioner no. 2.

With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on urgent basis.