Disposed

Prakash D. Patel, v. the Member Secretary

Madras HC8 Mar 2013WP(MD)/3648/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition filed for a writ directing respondents to grant a Saw Mill License. Court directed the respondents to consider the application and forward it through the prescribed administrative chain, specifying timelines for each step.

What did the court decide?

Directions to forward application through authorities within specified timelines for consideration and granting of Saw Mill License.

Prakash D. Patel, Vs the Member Secretary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

Prakash D.Patel

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.03.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P(MD)No.3648 of 2013

¶4

Prakash D.Patel Bhagawan Wood Industrials, No.478/1A, Dindigul Road, Near Agriculture College, Navallur, Kuttapattu Post, Trichy-620 009.

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Member Secretary, Central Empowered & Committee, Gate No.31, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.

¶8

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest -cum-Chairman, State Level Empowered Committee, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶9

3.The District Forest Officer, Trichy Division, Trichy. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.02.2013 and pass an order to take necessary steps to grant an Saw Mill License in favour of the petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner :Mr.A.Ramesh

¶12

For Respondents:MrK.K.Senthil Velan

¶13

Asst.Solicitor General for R1. Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R2 & R3

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.02.2013 and pass an order to take necessary steps to grant Saw Mill License in favour of the petitioner.

¶16

2.Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, learned Assistant Solicitor General took notice for the first respondent and Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, learned Additional Government Pleader took notice for the respondents 2 and 3. By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

¶17

3.It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he submitted an application on 17.11.2009, for the grant of license to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ run Saw Mill in his land in Survey No.478/1A in Navalur, Kuttapattu Post, Trichy, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy District and sent another representation

¶18

¶19

on 08.02.2013 and till date no order has been passed by the first respondent in granting license and therefore this writ petition is filed for the relief prayed for. He further submitted that as per the judgment rendered in W.P(MD)Nos.8930 of 2012 and batch dated 02.08.2012, the application has to be routed through the third respondent and the third respondent has to forward the same to the second respondent and thereafter the second respondent has to forward the same to the first respondent who is to grant the license and therefore a suitable direction may be given to the respondents.

¶20

4.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.R.Janarthanan,learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶21

5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the third respondent would forward the application to the second respondent after verifying whether the petitioner has complied with all the requirements.

¶22

6.Considering the same, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the third respondent to forward the application of the petitioner if it is otherwise in order to the second respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the second respondent is further directed to consider the same if the recommendation is in order and the second respondent shall forward the same to the first respondent within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The first respondent is directed to consider the application for the grant of license to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the recommendation by the second respondent. No costs.

sd/-

Deputy Registrar (W)

/True Copy/

Assistant Registrar

1.The Member Secretary, Central Empowered & Committee, Gate No.31, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003.

¶29

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest -cum- Chairman,State Level Empowered Committee, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶30

3.The District Forest Officer, Trichy Division, Trichy.

¶31

- 1 cc to Mr.K.Kevinkaran, Advocate, SR No.12909

¶32

- 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.13138

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

W.P(MD)No.3648 of 2013 08.03.2013

¶35

gsr/RJ/13.3.13/(2p/6c) (IT)

Prakash D. Patel, v. the Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash D. Patel, v. the Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Meenakumari Vs Teh Commissioner

M.Durairaj, Vs the Commissioner of Food

The Correspondent, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.Sundarapandian, Vs the Registrar

Madura Coats Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of

Madura Coats Ltd., Vs the Commissioner of