Serial No.69 Regular. Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1014/2022 JAVID AHMAD BHAT … Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M. Amin Khan, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Maha Majid, AC vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG Ms. Masooda Jan, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 15.04.2025 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) A writ of mandamus or any other order or direction, the respondents be commanded/directed to consider renewal of license for further period of 10 years earlier granted to the petitioner by virtue of licese No. 01184/Sec/CF/2017 dated 21/06/2017. (b) A writ of mandamus or any other order or direction, the respondents be commanded not to cause any interruption or interference to the petitioner in continuing the business for which he has been licensed to establish a secondary wood based industry (joinery only) and has been allowed to use Surface Planner Allied Hand Tools/equipments by virtue of annexure-1 and further respondent No. 4 be directed to return equipments which he has taken into custody so to enable the petitioner to run his surface planner so as to make window frames, door frames and other items required by consumers. (c) A writ of mandamus or any other order or direction, the respondents be commanded to take a decision in the representation and be further directed to file his response along with decision taken pertaining to renewal and having taken action against the respondent 4 and other persons involved in causing obstructions. 2. The facts emerging from the record of the petition reveal that the petitioner herein came to be granted a lincense by the Forest Department under license No. 01184/Sec/CF/2017 dated 21.06.2017 subject to various terms and conditions including that the licencee shall not alter the location of the industry unit in respect of which the licence has been granted without obtaining prior permission in writing of the licencing authority. 3. The petitioner herein claimed have been conducting his business activities at the unit in respect of which the licence was granted, however, the same was alleged to have been interfered with by respondent 4 in the month of March 2022 without any power and authority, disabling him to liquidate the loan availed by him from the bank for establishment of the unit. 4. The petitioner herein contends to have submitted a representation before respondent 1 against the inactions of the respondent 4 and other officers of the department having yielded no result sand instead, the respondents did not renew the licence of the petitioner violating his constitutal right to conduct business. 5. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents, wherein the petition is being opposed on the premise that the petitioner in violation of the terms and conditions set out in the licence being that the licencee shall not alter the location of unit without obtaining prior permission in writing of the licencing authority, the petitioner illegally altered the location of the unit to a new place, that too, without seeking prior permission of the licencing authority and that the said shifting of the unit by the petitioner unauthorizedly also created resentment amongst the common masses of the new location, while stating further that the Geo Co-ordinates of the place mentioned in the licence is 34o O” “28.81” “N” 74o 51 “2.90E” and the Geo Coordinates of relocated place is 34o O” “25.25” “N” 74o 51 “4.93 E” manifestly showing that the petitioner relocated the unit in violation of the terms of the licence as also Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Guidelines of 2016. 6. It has been further stated in the objections that an action against the petitioner under SRO 103 of 2012 dated 26.03.2012 came to be initiated for running the unit illegally at the relocated place, and, as such, his licence could not be renewed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Before proceeding to advert to the issues involved in the instant petition, it becomes imperative to refer to SRO 103 dated 26.03.2012 supra being the Jammu and Kashmir Wood Based (Saw Mills, Veener & Plywood) Industries (Registration and Regulation) Rules 2012, which at Rule 12 provides as follows;” Rule 12 Appeal against the refusal, suspension or cancellation of licence or refusal to renew licence:- (1) Any person, who has been refused the licence/registration under Rule-4 or renewal of licence under rule-6, or whose licence has ben suspended or cancelled under rule 11, may, within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of information of such refusal or suspension or cancellation of the lience/registration, as the case may be, appeal to the Chief Conservator of Forests concerned. (2) On receipt of the appeal filed under sub rule (1), the Chief Conservator of Forests shall decide the same within a period of 60 days, after giving the concerned person reasonable opportunity of being heard and after perusal of all relevant record. (3) The decision of the Chief Conservator of Forests on such appeal shall be final. As is evident from a plain reading of Rule 12 supra, a remedy of appeal is provided to a person aggrieved who has been either refused the licence/registration under Rule 4 or renewal of licence under Rule 6. 8. Since the petitioner herein in the instant petition has essentially sought the relief of renewal of his licence which is alleged to have not been renewed by the respondents is owing to the alleged violation of the terms and conditions set out in the licence by the petitioner, the petitioner instead of filing a statutory appeal in terms of Rule 12 supra has by pass the said statutory remedy and invoked extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, which in view of the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter this Court is not inclined to exercise. In view of the settled position of law that in presence of a statutory remedy provided by a statute High Court may not exercise discretion under Article 226. 9. Resultantly, the petition fails and is dismissed along with all connected applications, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal in the matter if cause survives and if there is no other legal impediment thereof. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 15.04.2025 “S.Nuzhat”