IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6123 of 2011 Udit Sharma, son of Late Mahabir Sharma, Resident of Village- Keshapi, Post Office and Police Station- Dobhi, District-Gaya. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Magadh Pramandal, Gaya. 3. The Licence Officer-cum- Forest Pramandal Officer, Gaya Forest Pramandal, Gaya. 4. The Forest Conservator, Gaya Anchal, Gaya. 5. The Forest Area Officer, Barachatti Forest Area, Barachatti, District-Gaya. …… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s. Suraj Narain Yadav & Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Anwaar Karim, A.C. to S C 16 -------- 05/ 11.08.2011 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 respondent-authorities not to disturb the trade and business of the petitioner and to grant/renew the licence in favour of the petitioner and for quashing the Seniority Lists issued by respondents selecting the saw mills and also for challenging letter issued against the petitioner directing him to immediately close down his saw mill and further to dispose of the stocks of timbers within the time frame. The petitioner has also challenged the circulars issued by the respondents laying down the arbitrary criteria for selecting the seniority of the saw mills and also for directing the respondents to prepare fresh list of saw mills after re-examining the seniority as per the recommendation dated 11.06.2008 made by the Central - 2 - Empowered Committee which was approved by Supreme Court and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned action of the authorities concerned. He further submits that the records of the matter in the connected office could not be found and is missing. 4. From the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the materials on record and the provisions of law it is quite apparent that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy in which the entire matter can be properly considered and decided, but the petitioner has not availed the said remedy. Hence the petitioner should file appeal against the impugned decision taken by the authorities concerned and if such an appeal is filed along with a copy of this order as well as requisites and 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 an 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. - 3 - 5. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)