High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shiv Muni Prasad & Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 22553 of 2005  RD-AH 283 (4 January 2006)
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
An application for recall has been filed for recalling the judgment and order dated 6th April, 2005 dismissing the writ petition in default. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the said application, we are satisfied that the Counsel was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on 6th April, 2005. We accordingly allow the restoration application, recall the order dated 6th April, 2005 and restore the writ petition to its original number.
Heard on merit.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material available on record.
The letter dated 15th June, 2002, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition, clearly shows that the petitioner does not possess the licence to run the Saw Mill. In such circumstances, the relief claimed for by the petitioner that the respondents should not interfere in the running of the Saw Mill, cannot be granted. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
However, this order shall not prevent the petitioner from filing a fresh application in accordance with law before the authority concerned for grant of fresh licence in accordance with the judgment given by us in the case of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47307 of 2005, Chaudhary Chandan Singh Vs. State of U. P. & Ors., decided on 05.07.2005
The petitioner shall produce a copy of the aforesaid judgment before the authority concerned along with the application for grant of fresh licence and the authority concerned shall consider the application in accordance with the aforesaid judgment.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.