IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9725 of 2004 M/S CHANDAN SHAW MILL REPRESENTED BY RAM DAYAL SHARMA SON OF LATE KAMLA THAKUR @ SHARMA R/O- VILLAGE- CHAPTA, P.O. MOHTHI- DHARAMCHAND, P.S. TISIOUTA, DIST. VAISHALI – PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VAISHALI CUM CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF SAW MILLS. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (D.F.O.) SARAN CUM- MEMBER FOR SELECTION OF SAW MILLS, FOREST DIVISION AT CHAPRA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VAILSHALI CUM MEMBER FOR SELECTION OF SAW MILLS. – RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ram Shankar Das, Adv. For the State : Mr. Jai Shankar Barnwal, Standing Counsel No.1 with Mr. Satish Kr. Sinha, A.C. to S.C.1 ------ 4/ 11-04-2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the validity and legality of a communication, contained in Memo No. 1035 dated 06.05.2004 (Annexure-9) issued by respondent no.3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the persons junior to him have been selected and have been allowed to run their saw-mill, whereas the case of the petitioner has not been properly considered. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.3, disputing the claim raised on behalf of the petitioner in the present proceeding. 4. However, in view of the nature of controversy 2 in the present proceeding, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter should be considered once again by respondent no.3 on the basis of the material produced by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner is hereby directed to file a detailed representation before respondent no.3 raising his grievances regarding his non-selection for renewal of his licence for running a saw-mill. If such a representation is filed within a period of four weeks from today with a certified copy of the present order, then respondent no.3 shall be obliged to dispose of the same, in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other concerned persons. The entire exercise must be completed by respondent no.3 within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. 6. It goes without saying that if no such representation along with a certified copy of the present order is filed by the petitioner within the time prescribed by this Court, then it shall be construed that the present writ petition has finally been rejected by this Court. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)