Ravendra Prasad Verma vs State of M.P. and Others

Ajit Singh, J.—By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 1.3.2006, Annexure P8, passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Katni (Respondent No. 3) whereby his application for licence to establish and operate a saw mill has been rejected. The Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order dated 8.6.2006, Annexure PI, passed by the appellate authority dismissing his appeal.

The facts are these On 19.3.1997 the Petitioner purchased a saw mill from M/s. Shyam Saw Mill, Katni, for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. He then made an application u/s 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984 (in short, "the Adhiniyam") for grant of licence to establish and run a saw mill at Rewa. The Divisional Forest Officer, Katni, by his letter dated 16.10.1997 addressed to the Conservator of Forests, Rewa, granted no objection certificate in his favour. The transfer proceedings of saw mill from Katni to Rewa and its registration in the name of Petitioner could not be completed on account of the ban imposed by the State Government in compliance of the interim order dated 12.12.1996 passed by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India. The application was, therefore, returned to him on 13.11.1997. The State Government, however, in the case of T.N. Godavarman furnished a list of saw mills running in the State of Madhya Pradesh to the Supreme Court in which the saw mill sold to the Petitioner was mentioned at serial number 24. The Supreme Court later by order dated 29.10.2002 lifted the ban imposed on transfer of saw mills and issuance of licences on saw mills to the transferee. The Petitioner then applied afresh by application dated 19.7.2005 for the transfer of saw mill in his name and also for licence to run the saw mill but the Divisional Forest Officeer, Katni, rejected the same by order dated 1.3.2006 on the ground that the name of Petitioner was not mentioned for the saw mill in question in the list of saw mills filed before the Supreme Court. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal u/s 11 of the Adhiniyam which too was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 8.6.2006. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal mainly on two grounds, firstly since the Petitioner had purchased the saw mill during the ban period imposed by the Supreme Court, the sale was illegal and secondly that after 1997 there was neither any renewal of licence to run the saw mill nor any return was submitted.

It is argued on behalf of the Petitioner that because of the rejection of his application for licence by the forest authorities and that too for no fault of his, grave injustice has been caused to him. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, defended the orders under challenge rejecting the Petitioner''s claim for the licence.

When the saw mill was sold by M/s. Shyam Saw Mill, Katni, to the Petitioner it had no right to transfer because of the ban imposed by the Supreme Court. This restriction was at least not known to the Petitioner. The restriction was removed by the Supreme Court by its subsequent order. During this period, the sale of saw mill was not rescinded either by M/s. Shyam Saw Mill or the Petitioner. It would be equitable in these circumstances to hold that the sale of saw mill became effective from the date (29.10.2002) restriction was removed by the Supreme Court. Analogy in this respect may be taken from the doctrine of English Law of feeding the estoppel, which means that when a person sells a property of which he is not the owner or has no right to sell but later becomes the owner or competent to sell and the sale in the interim period is not rescinded, the transferee acquires a good title. In India also this principle is enacted in Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. Applying this principle, I hold that the sale of saw mill dated 19.3.1997 was not void and it became valid from 29.10.2002. The application made by the Petitioner for licence to establish and run the saw mill should not have been rejected on the ground that the sale was invalid and void. Further, since M/s. Shyam Saw Mill had sold the saw mill in the year 1997 there could not have been any renewal of licence in its name or it was possible for M/s. Shyam Saw Mill to submit the returns. As already mentioned above, the Petitioner did apply for grant of licence in his name to run the saw mill and also for its shifting but the application was returned to him because of the ban imposed by the Supreme Court on the sale of saw mills.

For these reasons, I quash the orders dated 1.3.2006, Annexure P-8, and 8.6 2006, Annexure P-1 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Katni, and appellate authority and remand the matter to the Divisional Forest Officer, Katni, for reconsideration on the footing that Petitioner is the owner of saw mill. If the Petitioner''s application is not in form, the Divisional Forest Officer will given him an opportunity to make a proper application as may be required under the Adhiniyam and rules framed thereunder.

The petition succeeds and is allowed. No order as to costs.