IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7561 of 2003 RAM LAL VISHWAKARMA son of late Chait Naryan Vishwakarma,R/o village Post Lai, P.S. Bihata, District-Patna ....Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, 3rd Secretariat,Sinchai Bhawan, Harding Road, patna-800001 2. The Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest, Sinchai Bhawan Harding Road, Patna-800001. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Licensing Officer, Extension Division, Patna Divisional Forest Officer, Nehru Nagar, Patna800003. 4. The Conservator of Forest, Patna-cum-Prescribed Authority Divisional Forest Office, Nehru Nagar, Patna- 800003 .....Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Dr. Uma Shankar Prasad, Sr. Advocate Mr. Akhileshwar Kumar, Advocate Mr. Kamla Kant Tiwary, Advocate. For respondents. : Mr. Mohan Kumar Singh AC to S.C-I ----------- 12 14.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C to S.C.1 appearing on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the validity and legality of order dated16.4.2003 (Annexure-19) passed by the Prescribed Authority-cum-Conservator of Forest,Patna Circle, Patna, whereby he has refused to renew licence of the petitioner for running a Saw Mill on the ground that he was found junior most amongst the applicants for such licences. The facts in the present case are not in much controversy. The petitioner was granted licence No 249 of 1996 by the Licensing Authority-cum- Divisional Forest 2 Officer, Patna by order dated 23.2.1996 for running his Saw Mill at Bihta in the district of Patna. It is admitted case of the petitioner that licence issued to him was renewed up to year 2001 and he was running his Saw Mill on the strength of that licence. It appears that a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed before the Apex Court at the behest of one T.N. Godavarman Thirumalkpad Versus Union of India & others, which gave rise to writ petition (Civil) No. 202/1995, wherein the issue regarding preservation of forest was for consideration. In the aforesaid writ petition certain orders and directions were issued by the Apex Court, which were applicable for all the States of the country including our own State of Bihar. In the light of directions issued by the Apex Court, it further appears that, the State Government also took a policy decision to reduce number of Saw Mills and Plywood Mills etc. and it was resolved to reduce the number of Saw Mills to be 1950, 265 Veneer Mills and 109 Plywood Mills for the undivided State of Bihar. In view of reduction of number of Saw Mills, the licenses were required to be issued by the licensing authority under the provisions of Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 and actually, licence was issued to the petitioner in the year 1996. 3 Subsequently, in the light of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the light of policy decision of the State Government reducing the number of Saw Mills, quotas were allotted to the different district including the district of Patna. Licences were required to be renewed on the basis of seniority of the applicants as per the guidelines issued by the competent authorities from time to time in this regard. In that back ground, the impugned order dated 16.4.2003 (Annexure-19) appears to have been issued by the respondent no.4 refusing to select the petitioner for renewal of his licence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that uniform yard stick has not been applied by the respondent no.4 for passing the impugned order. The petitioner could not have been shown as junior most applicant, and in fact, he was fit to be considered for his selection within the quota prescribed for the district. Therefore, in his submission, impugned order dated 16.4.2003 (Annexure-19) is not sustainable in the eye of law and is fit to be set aside by this Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has heavily placed his reliance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4, and in his submission, in view of subsequent development the present writ petition has become 4 infructuous because everything has to be decided a fresh by the authorities in the light of the guide line issued by the Supreme Court and in the light of fresh policy decision to be taken by the State Government. It is common case of the parties that pursuant to direction issued by the Apex Court in the aforesaid writ petition, referred to above, a Central Empowered Committee was constituted. It is also a common case of the parties that the previous circulars/guidelines issued by the authorities concerned, in this regard, have either stood annulled or has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to a letter dated 3.11.2009 written by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Respondent no.2) to the Principal Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest, Government of Bihar, Patna, wherein a request has been made to issue a policy decision in the light of orders/directions/judgment of the Supreme Court for renewal of licence of the Saw Mill owners. It has also been pointed out in that letter that policy decision was required to be issued within a period of three months in the light of the order of the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the parties have fairly stated that to the best of their knowledge, no policy decisions have been taken by the respondent State in the light of 5 direction issued by the Supreme Court and the matter is under active consideration of the State Government. In view of the facts set forth above, this court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending before this Court. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is given liberty to file a detailed representation before respondent nos. 2 and 3 within a period of one month from today with a certified copy of this order, whereafter respondents are commanded to take a final decision regarding the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of filing of such application. The decision must be taken by the authorities concerned in the light of policy decision of the State Government or in the light of the observations and directions of the Supreme Court. With the aforesaid observations and directions the present petition stands disposed of. No costs. Rahman/ (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)