IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11957 of 2002 SHANKAR DAYAL GUPTA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5 5.5.2009 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner is as follows:- “1. That this writ application is being filed on behalf of the Petitioner in his individual capacity as well as in representative capacity for all such persons who have interest in common for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction commanding the respondents to decide the issue of denotification of Forrest reserved are running from Karwandia to Tarachandi within the district of Rohtas measuring an area of 1502-74 Acres henceforth in either way which is pending for final decision for the last 10 years putting the entire stone mining work to a complete halt and the lessees including the petitioner beside thousand of Labourers whose livelihood is dependent for the years on the said mining work has completely stopped so that the controversy arisen in the area because of infighting of Forest department and the department of minor minerals may come to an end finally” Counsel for the State refers to an order of this Court dated 6.3.2002 in CWJC No. 15583 of 2001 which according to him in fact had been passed in an exactly similar case. This Court having perused the order of this Court dated 6.3.2002 in CWJC No. 15583 of 2001 is satisfied that this writ application also meet the same fate, inasmuch as, on the earlier occasion, this Court had held as follows:- 2 “In the opinion of this Court the recommendations as contained in Annexure-13 are not statutory recommendations. If certain persons, other than the officers of the State or the Central Government, make certain recommendations without any authority under the law then such recommendations are nothing, but waste paper and not worth the paper on which it is written. When the land is acquired and is notified as reserved forest, then it is for the competent government to issue further notification. The High Court would not be competent to issue a direction to the authorities to release the forest land from acquisition or acquire some other land after release of the mining area which has now been declared as forest land.” Accordingly, this application is dismissed in the light of the aforementioned observations. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)