WP(C) 453/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr PJ Saikia, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr H Rahman, learned stat e counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by non-consideration of his case for revocat ion of the order of suspension of licence granted under provisions of Assam Wood -based Industries Rules, 2000. According to the petitioner, though pursuant to t he directions contained in the order passed by the Apex Court in T.N. Godavarana m Thirumpulpad’s case, all the licences of wood-based industries had been suspen ded, his industry having not come within the definition of wood-based industrie s in terms of the clarification given by the government of India, Ministry of E nvironment and Forests ~ in the communication dated 30th September 2001 ~ he had filed a representation before the respondent authorities for revocation of the order of suspension of the licence which, having not been done, he had filed WP( C) no.5973/2003, wherein the respondent authorities ~ more particularly the Chie f Conservator of Forest(T), Assam, Guwahati ~ had been directed to cause an enqu iry to be made into the petitioner’s contentions in the background of the commun ication dated 30th September 2001 and also the aforesaid 2000 Rules which, howev er has not been made on the ground that the relevant records could not be traced , as is evident from the communication dated 13th December 2010 issued by the De puty Secretary to the government of Assam, Forest & Environment Department in re ply to the information sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information A ct 2005(RTI Act). Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that since a direct ion has already been issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the re spondents cannot delay consideration of the petitioner’s application/representat ion for revocation of the order of suspension of licence on the ground that the relevant record was not traceable. It is also submitted that the proposed amendm ent to the 2000 Rules will in no way affect the right of the petitioner to get t he order of suspension of licence revoked. Though no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by any of the responden ts, learned state counsel submitted that efforts to trace the relevant record wo uld be made and if not found the same will be reconstructed and the petitioner’s application/representation would be considered and necessary speaking order wou ld be passed pursuant to the directions contained in the aforesaid writ petition . It appears from the judgment and order dated 20th December 2005 passed i n the aforesaid writ petition that Principal Chief Conservator of Foreset(T), As sam, Guwahati was directed to consider the case of the petitioner for revocation of the order of suspension of the licence in terms of the communication dated 3 0th September 2001 and also the 2000 Rules. Such consideration, admittedly, has not been made as the relevant record was not traceable, which is evident from th e communication dated 30th December 2010 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the g overnment of Assam, Environment & Forest Department to the petitioner pursuant t o his application filed under the RTI Act. Since a direction has already been is sued, the Chief Conservator of Foreests is dutybound to comply with such directi on, which has not been complied with till date. In view of above, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests(T), Assam, Guwahati, to consider the cas e of the petitioner in terms of the judgment and order dated 20th December 2005 passed in the aforesaid writ petition by a speaking order within one month from the day when a copy of this order along with a complete set of writ petition is submitted by the petitioner before the said authority. Needless to say, if for a ny reason the relevant record could not be traced out, necessary steps for recon struction of the same shall also be taken. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposed amendment to the 2000 Rules will in no way affect the right of the petitioner to get the order of suspension of licence revoked shall also be considered by the authority while passing the speaking order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.