IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7887 of 2011 HINDUSTAN TIMBERS WORKS, KANKERBAGH MAIN ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. GEETA SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE RAMENDRA PRASAD SHARMA, RESIDENT OF KANKERBAGH MAIN ROAD, PO + PS – KANKERBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA……..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER PATNA-CUM-THE CHAIRMAN OF SAW MILL SELECTION COMMITTEE, PATNA. 4. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, PATNA-CUM-MEMBER, SAW MILL SELECTION COMMITTEE, PATNA. 5. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PATNA-CUM-THE MEMBER SECRETARY, SAW MILL SELECTION COMMITTEE, PATNA………………..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : M/s Aditya Prakash Sahay, Manas Prakash and Manoj Kr. Sinha, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Dilip Kumar, AC to GA-2 ----------- 02/ 16.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing respondents-authorities not to disturb the trade and business of the petitioner and to grant/renew the license in favour of the petitioner and for quashing the Seniority List issued by respondents selecting the saw mill and also for challenging Memo/Letter issued against the petitioner directing her to immediately close down her saw mill and further to dispose of the stocks of timbers within the time frame. The petitioner has also challenged the circular issued by the respondents laying down the arbitrary criteria for selecting the seniority of the saw mill and also for directing the respondents to prepare fresh list of saw - 2 - mill after re-examining the seniority as per the recommendation dated 11.06.2008 made by the Central Empowered Committee which was approved by Supreme Court and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. The matter is a contested one and both the parties are raising their respective claims. Similar matter had arisen earlier in C.W.J.C. No.4207 of 2011 and the only difference between that case and the instant case is that in the earlier case the father of the petitioner was the licensee whereas in the instant case the petitioner herself is a licensee. This fact hardly affects the merit of the case. In the said circumstances, this case is also disposed of in terms of order dated 08.03.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No.4207 of 2011. 4. The petitioner has got an alternative remedy and hence she should prefer appeal against the impugned decision taken by the District Level Committee. If such appeal is filed along with the requisites and a copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to filing of this writ petition and shall decide the said appeal on merits expeditiously preferably within a period of four months thereafter keeping in view the order of the Apex Court dated 30.01.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 460 of 2004 and other analogous cases as well as the decision dated 04.09.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 202 of 1995 and the steps taken by the Government in the light of the said decisions. If such appeal is filed as per the direction given above, the operation of the order impugned in this writ petition shall remain stayed till disposal of the concerned appeal. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)