IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4614 of 2010 1. Shyam Yadav S/O Sri Chulhai Yadav R/O Vill.- Barsam, Tole-Phulwaria, P.S.- Andhra Tharhi, Distt.- Madhubani, Owner Of Vishwakarma Saw Mills, Andhratharhi, Distt.- Madhubani Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Conservator Of Forests, Extension Circle, Muzaffarpur 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Mithila Forest Extension Division, Darbhanga 4. The Range Of Forest, Jhanjharpur, Distt.- Darbhanga 5. The District Magistrate Madhubani ---------------- 6. 05.9.2011. Heard Mr. H.K.Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, G.P.7 for the State. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.7.2009 passed by the- respondent Conservator of Forest, Muzafarpur Circle in Appeal No.3 of 2005, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under section 12 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been dismissed. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 28.8.2003 as contained in Annexure-4, whereby the second application filed by the petitioner for grant of licence was rejected, inter alia, on grounds that there was stay on the grant of the licence by the State Government. A further direction has been sought to the 2 respondent no.3 the Divisional Forest Officer, Mithila Forest Extension Division, Darbhanga to pass necessary orders in the light of the directions contained in the order dated 8.11.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Madhubani in Forest Appeal No.36 of 2003 as contained in Annexure-3 whereby the Appellate Authority, while setting aside the order of confiscation, has directed the licensing Authority to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner had applied for grant of licence under the provisions of the Act which was rejected by the Divisional Forest Officer, Darbhanga vide order passed on 16.5.2002 (Annexure-A/1). As the petitioner was running his saw mill sans any licence, his saw mill was seized. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed C.W.J.C.No.1555 of 2002 and which was disposed of by order dated 18.3.2002 (Annexure-5) requiring the statutory authority under the Act to bring the proceedings to its logical end. Following the order passed by this Court, the matter of grant of licence to the petitioner and confiscation of his saw mill was taken up by the Licensing Authority-cum-Divisional Forest 3 Officer. By order dated 12.2.2002 as contained in memo no.1521 dated 24.5.2002, the Licensing Authority cum Divisional Forest officer, Mithila Forest Extension Division, directed for confiscation of the Saw Mill and the other implements of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act read with the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927. By another order passed on 16.5.2002 (Annexure-A/1), the application of the petitioner for grant of licence was rejected, inter alia, on grounds of the same being incomplete and in view of the stay order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A formal Office order to this effect was issued bearing memo no.1369 dated 17.5.2002 (Annexure-C). The petitioner preferred an appeal under section 12 of the Act giving rise to Appeal No.3 of 2005 which has since been rejected by order dated 30.7.2009 though in its operative portion, it has been inadvertently mentioned by the appellate authority that the order of confiscation does not require any interference when admittedly, the appeal was preferred against the order of rejection of the application of the petitioner for grant of licence dated 16.5.2002 as also communicated vide memo dated 17.5.2002. It is 4 this order of dismissal of the appeal which is put to challenge before this court in the present writ petition together with the order dated 28.8.2003 as contained in Annexure-4 whereby the second application of the petitioner for grant of licence has also been rejected on grounds of the stay order on grant of licence issued by the State Government. The only contention raised by the petitioner, as is manifest from the pleadings made in the writ petition, is that no substantial ground has been raised by the respondents for non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for grant of licence under the Act. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents reiterating the chain of events. The stand of the respondent department is that the first application filed by the petitioner in the year 1998 was not accompanied with the deposit required by him under Rule 3(5) of the Rules framed under the act and thus was incomplete and hence, the same was rejected under the order dated 16.5.2002 (Annexure-A/1) as communicated vide memo dated 17.5.2002 as contained in Annexure-C. It is thus the stand of the respondents that on grounds of application 5 being incomplete and in view of the stay on grant of licence issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the application of the petitioner could not be entertained and hence, was rejected. It is contended that the second application filed by the petitioner in the year 2003 was also rejected vide order passed on 28.8.2003 (Annexure-4) in view of the departmental instructions restraining the issuance of fresh license. It is next contended that in view of the directions being issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition NO.202 of 1985, the list of Saw Mills owners was prepared and which has since been brought on record by the petitioner by way of supplementary affidavit placed at Annexure-6 thereof. The said final seniority list is purportedly prepared in the light of the directions of the Supreme Court and in terms of the provisions of the resolution dated 30.8.2010. Learned counsel for the State submits that a perusal of the said list manifests that only such of the saw mill owners who had applied for licence until 9.3.1996 and were issued licence until 24.12.1999, have been placed in the 6 seniority list. It is thus contended that as admittedly, the petitioner was not an applicant as on 1996, he can have no grievance inasmuch as even the licensed Saw Mills who had obtained licence after 24.12.1999, have not been placed in the seniority list. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is manifest that the application of the petitioner for grant of licence was not only rejected by the respondent authorities in view of the stay order of the Supreme Court, but also on ground that the same was incomplete as is also manifest from the order dated 16.5.2002 (Annexure-A/1) and order bearing memo no.1369 dated 17.5.2002 as contained in Annexure-C. Obviously, if the application itself was incomplete the same could not have been entertained. Even if the petitioner went on depositing the renewal fee, for renewal of an application which was incomplete, no right accrued to him or any infirmity can be found in the order passed by the Licensing Authority as contained in Annexure-A/1 and Annexure-C as upheld by the Appellate Authority vide memo placed at Annexure-2. Thus, considering the circumstances set 7 forth above, there is no merit in the prayer of the petitioner questioning the decision of the Licensing Authority on his application for grant of licence under the Act and the orders passed by the Statutory Authorities under the Act does not call for any interference and the prayer made in the writ petition to this extent, is rejected. However, before parting with the order, this court would like to observe that as the second application complete in all respects, was admittedly filed by the petitioner in 2003 and has not been rejected on merits rather the Licensing Authority cum Divisional Forest Officer, Mithila Forest Extension Division, Darbhanga by memo dated 28.8.2003 (Annexure-4), has simply refused to grant the licence to the petitioner in the light of the restraint issued by the Forest Department, hence, the petitioner to that extent, can be treated to be a valid applicant for grant of licence and can be considered as and when the department decides to consider the case of the Saw Mills who had submitted application for grant of license under the Act, in the year 2003. In so far as the third prayer of the petitioner is concerned, whereby he has sought 8 directions to the respondent no.3, the Licensing Authority cum Divisional Forest Officer, Mithila Forest Extension Division, Darbhanga to pass appropriate orders in the light of the order dated 8.11.2004 passed in Case No.36 of 2003 as contained in Annexure-3, the Divisional Forest Officer, in its counter affidavit filed in the present proceedings, while admitting to the delay, has also stated in paragraph-15 of the counter affidavit, that necessary steps are being taken by him for disposal of the matter and in which direction he has also issued to notice on 19.8.2001 to the petitioner for appearance and a copy of the same has been placed at Annexure-E fixing the date of hearing on 5.9.2011. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, no further directions needs to be issued to the respondent no.3 who may dispose of the confiscation case of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)