In a writ petition under Article 226, the Patna High Court disposed of the matter after the learned Additional Chief to AAG submitted an undertaking to decide the pending representation regarding the closure of license for Veneer Mills within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4622 of 2022
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.4622 of 2022(2) dt.09-09-2022 2/3
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Mistry, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Ms. Sunita Kumari, AC to AAG 13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed seeking a
writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent no. 3 to decide the representation dated 11.02.2022 (Annexure 2) filed by the petitioners requesting him not to close down and dismantle the Veneer Mills of the petitioners without approval of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4622 of 2022(2) dt.09-09-2022 3/3
the State Level Committee as the said Committee is authorized to take a decision regarding grant of license/permission to the Wood-Based Industries in terms of order dated 05.10.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995.
Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned AC to AAG 13 accepts notice on behalf of the State and submits that the representation, if any, pending with the authority shall be decided at the earliest, in any case, not later than one month.
The writ petition stands disposed off.
(Rajan Gupta, J)
( Dr. Anshuman, J)
P. Kumar
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be disposed off after obtaining an undertaking from the respondent to decide the pending representation within one month.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995Referred¶29
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Sushila Ply and Veneer and others
The State of Bihar
RAJAN GUPTA
DR. ANSHUMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
