Mohammed Abdul Majeed vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammed Abdul Majeed, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Divisional Forest Officer (Respondent No.4) to grant a new license for a mini timber depot. The petitioner had established a proprietary firm, "Mohammed Abdul Majeed," and registered it under GST on June 27, 2023. He applied for the mini timber depot license on July 27, 2023, and subsequently submitted representations on August 10, 2023, and January 4, 2024. Despite complying with formalities, his application remained pending. The petitioner alleged that the inaction of Respondent No.4 was illegal, arbitrary, malicious, politically motivated, and against natural justice and fair play, as well as against the Forests Acts and Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was filed due to this alleged inaction.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No.4, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kagaznagar Division, to consider the petitioner's grievance as stated in his representation dated 04.01.2024. The Court further directed Respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application dated 27.07.2023, which sought a new license for the mini timber depot at his premises in Kagaznagar for running a wood-based mini timber depot using products from legitimate sources. This decision was to be made in accordance with the law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the Court's order. The Court also ordered that the decision be duly communicated to the petitioner. No order as to costs was made. The Court did not explicitly decide on the allegations of illegality, arbitrariness, malice, political motivation, or violations of constitutional provisions, as the matter was resolved by directing the authority to consider the application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the Divisional Forest Officer (Respondent No.4) in granting a new license for a mini timber depot to the petitioner, and in not disposing of the petitioner's representation dated 04-01-2024, is illegal, arbitrary, malicious, politically motivated, and against the principles of natural justice, fair play, Forests Acts, and Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Respondent No.4's inaction was illegal, arbitrary, malicious, politically motivated, and violated principles of natural justice, fair play, Forests Acts, and constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 19, and 21). He argued that his application and subsequent representations had not been acted upon despite compliance with all formalities. Respondents' arguments: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forest submitted that the writ petition could be disposed of by directing Respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner's grievance as put forth in his representation dated 04.01.2024 and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application dated 27.07.2023 in accordance with law within a reasonable period.