IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.614 of 2006 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE REGIONAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, PATNA, SRI KRISHNAPURI, PATNA. 4. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, BHAGALPUR CIRCLE, BHAGALPUR. 5. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, BANKA FOREST DIVISION, BANKA. 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR CUM CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COMMITTEE ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, BHAGALPUR. .. PETITIONERS. Versus M/S ARUN SAW MILL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR ARUN KUMAR SHARMA SON OF LATE BABULAL SHARMA, RESIDENT OF RANITALAB SABOUR ROAD, P.S. SABOUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR … RESPONDENT. ----------- 5. 22.02.2011 Sole respondent the Saw Mill owner has filed counter affidavit supporting the order passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur dated 3.5.2005 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6 of 2004, Annexure-1 which is taken on record. State of Bihar through the Commissioner and the Secretary Environment and Forest Department and other officers have questioned the validity of the order dated 3.5.2005 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6 of 2004, Annexure-1, whereunder the order dated 24.2.2004, Annexure-3, of the Divisional Forest Officer, Banka cancelling the Saw Mill license of the petitioner on the ground that the Mill was shifted without the permission of the licensing 2 authority has been set aside. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order dated 3.5.2005 has been passed ignoring the provisions of Sub-clause 2(g) of Clause-4 of Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1993 which inter alia provide that the location of the Saw Mill shall be changed with the written permission of the licensing authority but in the instant case respondent shifted the Saw Mill within the jurisdiction of the licensing authority without his permission. It is further submitted that factum of change of the site of the Saw Mill was noticed after petitioner applied for renewal of license as in the application for renewal of license the new location of the Saw Mill was mentioned whereafter inspection was made on 19.11.2001 and it was found that the Saw Mill has been shifted to a location which is not mentioned in the license. 2. Counsel for the sole respondent has supported the impugned order. He states that respondent filed application dated 10.8.2001 for granting permission for change of location of the Saw Mill but the same was not being considered in spite of recommendation permitting such change made by the Subordinate Forest Officials which is also mentioned in the impugned order. From perusal of the order dated 24.2.2004, Annexure-3 cancelling the license it does not appear that by effecting change in location of the Saw Mill the number of Saw Mill permitted to be established in the jurisdiction of the Divisional Forest Officer concerned has increased. Counsel for 3 the petitioner has also admitted the fact that after grant of license to the petitioner in compliance of the impugned order of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, petitioner has not violated any of the terms of the license. When such submission was recorded, counsel submitted that he is not aware about such fact. Be that as it may, it is evident from the impugned order itself that evenafter transfer the number of Saw Mill permitted to be established within the jurisdiction of the licensing officer concerned has not increased as also the fact that the transfer application was not being considered favorably by the licensing authority in spite of recommendation of the inferior officers and both the facts persuaded the court below to set aside the impugned cancellation order dated 24.2.2004, Annexure-3 under the impugned order dated 3.5.2005, Annexure-1. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 3.5.2005, Annexure-1 under writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Ibrar/- ( V.N. Sinha, J.)