IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15497 of 2009 1. BINOD MISTRI S/O LATE RAMPATI MISTRI, R/O VILLAGE-MUBARAKPUR, P.S. KURTHA, DISTRICT- ARWAL. 2. MUNGESHWAR MISTRI S/O CHANDRADEO MISTRI, R/O VILLAGE-KHAIRADIH, P.S. KURTHA, DISTRICT- ARWAL. ……………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIORNMENT AND FOREST, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SICHAI BHAWAN, SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIORNMENT AND FOREST, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, 4TH FLOOR, TECHNOLOGY BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE LICENSING AUTHORITY-CUM-DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, AURANAGABAD FOREST DIVISION, AURANGABAD, BIHAR. ……………RESPONDENTS. For the petitioners : Mr. Mrigank Macali (Advocate) Mr. Vinay Mistri (Advocate) For the State : Mr. Pritesh Kumar (Advocate) (A.C. to A.A.G.-1) ----------- 4 17-08-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents State. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 30-5-2009 (Annexure-4) by which the 2 Licensing Authority-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Aurangabad Forest Division, Aurangabad, Bihar (Respondent No. 3) informed the petitioner that no license would be issued to them on the ground that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has imposed ban on grant of fresh license to Saw Mills and hence the security money of Rs. 2,000/- was returned to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had applied for a license of Saw Mills in September, 2002 and had also deposited bank draft no. 32900 dated 7-9-2002 as well as bank draft no. 354816 dated 1-9-2002 for the said purpose. He further submits that the authorities concerned are relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and others with K. M. Chinappa v. Union of India and others, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 606 which was decided on 30-10- 2002. He further submits that the said order is not retrospective, rather it is prospective in nature and hence it cannot be made applicable to the applications filed earlier. 4. The order passed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case is quite clear in providing that no State or Union Territory shall permit any unlicensed Saw Mills; Veneer, Plywood Industry to be operated and they were directed to close all the said unlicensed Mills, forthwith. Furthermore no State Government or Union Territory was allowed to permit any Saw Mills, private industry to run without prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee. The committees of each State were to ensure strict compliance of the 3 said direction. No relaxation of rules was permitted with regard to the grant of license without permission of the Central Empowered Committee. 5. From the said facts, it is quite apparent that the State Governments or Union Territories were barred from granting such license without prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee. Since no license was granted to the petitioner prior to the said order, the claim of petitioner could not be allowed. The said rule would be applicable irrespective of the fact that the application was made by the petitioner earlier. 6. In the said circumstances, the authorities were quite justified in informing the petitioner by the impugned letter dated 10-5- 2009 that license could not be granted to him. This Court does not find any illegality in the same. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. S.P. (S. N. Hussain, J)