IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7834 of 2010 1. Prabhunath Sharma S/O Late Sheoshankar Sharma R/O Vill.- Rampur, P.S.- Garkha, Distt.- Saran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Forest & Environment Department, Govt. Of Bihar 3. The Forest Regional Officer Cum Conservator Of Forest Saran At Chapra 4. The Licensing Officer Cum The Divisional Forest Officer, Saran 5. The Forest Officer, Marhowrah, Saran. ------------------------ 3. 19.10.2011. Heard Mr. Awadhendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2009 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge, Saran at Chapra in Misc.Appeal No.93 of 2005 as contained in Annexure-4, whereby the learned Judge, while affirming the order dated 25.2.2004 passed by the Licensing Officer cum Divisional Forest Officer, Saran (Annexure- 3), has dismissed the appeal. The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner was running a Saw Mill having been granted licence by the authorities under the Factories Act. Upon enforcement of the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), all such saw mill owners were 2 required to obtain licence under the provision of Section 5 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not choose to obtain any such licence under the Act. On an inspection being made by the authorities of the Forest Department, the petitioner was found to be operating his Saw Mill without a valid licence. Considering the circumstances, the respondent no.5 seized all the articles including the timber and the machinery and which was followed by a notice dated 8.3.2003 requiring the petitioner to appear before the respondent no.4 on 28.8.2003 together with all documents in respect of his defence. Copy of the notice has been placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition., The petitioner, in response to the notice, appeared before the respondent no.4 and placed his defence and the respondent no.4, upon consideration thereof, was pleased to reject the contention of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 25.2.2004 placed at Annexure-3 to the writ petition, inter alia, on grounds that the petitioner was found operating his mill without obtaining licence under the Act. The appeal filed by the petitioner 3 giving rise to Misc. Appeal No.93 of 2005 was also dismissed by order dated 12.11.2009 by the 9th Additional District Judge, Saran at Chapra. Considering the circumstances that the alleged seizure followed by the confiscation of the implements and the materials available in the Saw Mill premises of the petitioner, had taken place by reason of the petitioner not being in possession of a valid licence under the Act, I find no infirmity in the order impugned. The writ petition is dismissed. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)