Tara Chand vs State of H.P. and Others

Sureshwar Thakur, J.—The petitioner, as divulged by Annexure P-1, is running a furniture house/joinery in Village Dhoggi, Post Office Chowai, Tehsil Ani, since the year 2005. Annexure P-3 discloses the fact of validity of Annexure P-1 having come to be extended up to 31.12.2015. The petitioner avers that respondent No. 4 has illegally commenced, running a furniture house in Chowai Bazar. He has omitted to obtain valid permission from the authorities concerned. The petitioner made several complaints and representations to the authorities concerned comprised in Annexures P-4 to P-11 and P-13 for taking action against respondent No. 4 against his illegal running a furniture shop. The petitioner heavily relies upon Annexure P-15 to canvass before this Court that with its contents displaying that his not having accorded valid permission, to, run the furniture house, hence, his running the furniture house, is, contrary to the provisions of law necessitating action against respondent No. 4, by respondents No. 1 to 3. Consequently, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to take action against respondent No. 4 and seal the illegal furniture house being run by him at Chowai Bazaar in Tehsil Ani and also to seal his workshop at village Bowanda.

The respondents contested the petition and filed a detailed reply. In short, the stand, advanced by the respondents, in their reply is that respondent No. 4 is not manufacturing furniture at his shop, rather, he is engaged in the selling of readymade steel and wooden furniture, for which no permission is required. The fact of respondent No. 4 not being engaged in the manufacturing of the furniture, rather, his selling the readymade steel and wooden furniture, has been detailed in the reply furnished by the respondents.

Admittedly, the petitioner is lawfully engaged in the business of manufacturing furniture. On the other hand, the petitioner contends that respondent No. 4, without any legal permission or authorization by the competent authority, is engaged in the business of manufacturing furniture, as is, also running an illegal workshop at Bowanda. However, no cogent and reliable material at this stage has been placed on record on the part of the petitioner to substantiate his averments. On the other hand, the respondents have pointedly in their reply projected that respondent No. 4 is not engaged in the business of manufacturing of furniture, rather, he is selling readymade steel and wooden furniture at his shop for which no valid permission is required to be accorded by respondents No. 1 to 3. The said averment of the respondents remains un-rebutted, arising from no rejoinder to it having not been filed by the petitioner. Consequently, its contents are to be imputed credence. In other words, it, is, to be held that the petitioner is estopped from contending, that the reply of respondents No. 1 to 3 that respondent No. 4, is, not engaged in the business of manufacturing furniture, rather, he is selling readymade steel and wooden furniture at his shop is untruthful.

No concerted efforts have been made on the part of the petitioner to lend any substantial sinew and legal vigor to the averments in the petition that the petitioner has either an illegal workshop at Bhowanda, as, contended, comprised in his appending along with the writ petition photographic evidence in proof thereof nor is there on record any complaint made by the petitioner to the authorities concerned delineating, articulating and forthrightly demonstrative, of, the petitioner having illicitly felled trees and used the converted timber there from, to, manufacture timber at his workshop at Bhowanda.

The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant petition is wholly mis-conceived and the same is dismissed as such, along with pending application(s), if any. No costs.