IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4207 of 2011 BINDESHWAR RAI son of Late Bhola Rai, Resident of Bara Jagarnath P.O. Bhikhanpur, P.S. Ahiyapur, Dist-Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Commissioner-cum- Principal Secretary, Department of Forest6 & Environment Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Level Committee constituted under the Letter No. 2675 dated 30.8.2010 of the department of Forest and Environemtn, through its Chairman-cum-Regional Prinipal Conservator of Forest, Tirhut Forest Division, Muzaffarpur. 3. The senior Regional Conservator of Forest, Tirhut Forest Division, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Licensing Authority-cum-Divisional Forest Officer Tirhut Forest Division Muzaffarpur. ----------- 2 8.3.2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for restraining the respondents authorities from disturbing the trade and business of the petitioner and for grant/renewal of the saw mill license in the name of the petitioner in place of his late father being licensee in accordance with Clause(vii) of Circular bearing 76/2007/ 2675/i0o0 dated 30.08.2010 issued by Respondent No. 1 and also for directing the respondents authorities to put the petitioner’s saw mill as per the seniority 2 which was available to his late father and also for quashing letter no. 177 dated 22.01.2011 issued by the Licensing Authority-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Tirhut Forest Division, Muzaffarpur by which the Petitioner’s claim was rejected on the assumption that his mill did not come within 82 mills as per the seriatim. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order dated 22.1.2011 (Annexure-9) in which it was specifically held that as per the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court the number of the mills in the districts was limited and out of them 82 mills were allowed for Muzaffarpur and since mills were selected as per the seriatim, the petitioner’s mill being below 82 serial, was not selected. 4. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such order of the Hon’ble Apex Court and if the seniority of the mill in question which was earlier owned by his father is considered, the said mill would come within 82 mills 3 according to serial number, but seniority has been arbitrarily decided by the authority concerned. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner has got an alternative remedy and hence, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned decision taken by the District Level Committee dated 22.1.2011 (Annexure-9). If such an appeal is filed along with a copy of this order along with an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the Appellate Authority shall consider the delay caused due to the filing of this writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merit expeditiously preferably within a period of four months thereafter. If an appeal is filed as per the directions given above the operation of the impugned order dated 22.1.2011 (Annexure-9) shall remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal. Prakash (S.N.Hussain,J.)