IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2786 of 2010 Umakant Tiwary son of late Sudarsan Tiwary, resident of Village-Babhanauli, P.O.-Chhitauni, P.S.-Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj (Bihar) Proprietor of Vishwakarma Saw Mill, Kali More, Sansarpur, P.O. and P.S. Bhore, District-Gopalganj. .........Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Mr. Anil Singh, The Divisional Forest Officer, Siwan Forest Division, P.O. and P.S.-Siwan , District-Siwan. 3. Mr. Sanjay Paswan, the Ranger, Forest Range, Bhore, P.S. and P.S.-Bhore, District-Gopalganj. .............Opposite Parties ----------- 03 26.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This application is filed for initiating a proceeding of contempt for alleged disobedience of the order dated 23rd of November, 2001, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13340 of 2001, whereby this Court was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner with respect to the renewal of the licence for running the Saw Mill of the petitioner. It is submitted that although petitioner filed a representation, the same was not disposed of. It is further submitted that by the aforesaid order, the authority concerned should be directed to disposed of the representation till the renewal of the licence is not granted petitioner shall not operate the Saw Mill. It is submitted that petitioner is not running the Saw Mill, with the result he is facing serious hardship. A show cause has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 stating therein that the 2 order has been complied with and an appropriate order as contained in Annexure-A series to the show cause has been passed. The application for renewal of the licence is rejected on the ground stated in the order. It is further submitted that basic ground for rejection is that petitioner did not submit the monthly stock quarterly statement of the Saw Mill is absolutely incorrect which would be apparent on perusal of copy of the such statements annexed with the reply to the show cause as contained in Annexure-7 series. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the order contained in Annexure-A although indicates that the said order had been sent by registered post, however, the same is not received by the petitioner. The petitioner could learn about the aforesaid order only through the show cause wherein the aforesaid order is annexed as Annexure-A, as such petitioner proposes to assail the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The contempt application is accordingly disposed of. Safik (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)