IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.112 of 2011 MOSTT.MAHIZA KHATOON, WIFE OF LATE MD ZAMIRUDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MOHALLA- COLLEGE CHOWK, WARD NO.8, MADHEPURA, P.S. + DISTRICT-MADHEPURA………………………APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY CUM CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, PURNEA ANCHAL, PURNEA. 3. THE LICENSING OFFICER-CUM-DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SAHARSA FOREST DIVISION, SAHARSA. 4. THE RANGE OFFICER, MADHEPURA. ………………………………………………RESPONDENTS. -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate ----------- 4. 21.4.2011. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The writ court took notice of Rule 6 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) and found that the petitioner has not filed application for renewal of the licence for saw mill within the permissible period, i.e., at least one month before the expiry of the licence. The writ petition has been, accordingly, dismissed. The submission advanced on behalf of the appellant 2 is that even if the application for renewal is filed beyond permissible period as provided under Rule 6(1) of the Rules, the other provisions in the same Rule require the concerned authority to consider the application and pass order allowing the prayer for renewal or rejecting the same and till then petitioner had a right to operate the licence on account of pendency of his application for renewal. Rule 6 of the Rules, no doubt, contemplates that during the period when application for renewal of licence is pending for consideration, it shall be deemed as if such licence was renewed under the Act and the licensee was operating under a valid licence. It also provides that where licence is not renewed ordinarily within one month period, the licensing authority should inform the licensee regarding the renewal or refusal of the licence as the case may be. However, prior to such provision in sub-rule (4) and sub-rule (5), the other provisions, particularly time prescribed for renewal application are conditions precedent for exercise of such power by the concerned authority. Where application for renewal is not filed within the permissible period, i.e., at least one month before the expiry of the licence together with the prescribed application fee for renewal, the Licensing Officer 3 will not have jurisdiction to make enquiry and treat the licence alive under the relevant provisions. If such a course was permissible, there would have been clear indication for the same in the Rules but they do not permit relaxation of the prescribed period by the concerned authority on the ground of illness or for any other reason. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual situation, we do not find any reason to take a different view. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. It will be open for the petitioner to apply before the concerned authority for refund of the licence fee which was deposited by him for the purpose of renewal. If such application is filed it shall be disposed of expeditiously and favorably considering that the authority had no jurisdiction to accept the renewal fee when the renewal application was not within permissible time. Sanjay-II (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)