IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4033 of 2010 Ramesh Kumar Sharma S/O Late Mahendra Prasad Sharma R/O Vill.- Kauwaha, P.O.- Manguraha, P.S.- Govindganj, Distt.- Motihari, East Champaran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Secretary Environment And Forest, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Development) Bihar, Patna 3. The Conservator Of Forest Cum Appellate Authority Muzaffarpur Circle, Muzaffarpur 4. The Collector Cum Chairman District Environment Committee, East Champaran, Motihari 5. The Superintendent Of Police Motihari, East Champaran 6. The Divisional Forest Officer Cum Licencing Authority-Cum- Member Secretary The District Environment Committee, East Champaran, Motihari -------------------- 07/ 20.09.2011 Mr. Manoj Kumar Manoj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav, Assisting counsel to S.C. 3 for the State are present. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent no. 6, the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Licencing Authority-cum-Member Secretary, the District Environment Committee, East Champaran, Motihari in not acting pursuant to the direction contained in the order dated 30.6.2009, passed by the respondent no. 3, the Conservator of Forest in Appeal No. 12 of 2008 placed at Annexure-12 of the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that he was running a saw mill in the name and style of M/s. Sharma Udyog since 5.5.1989 and held a license issued by the Director of Industries. It is contended that upon enforcement of the Bihar Saw Mill Regulation 2 Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder the petitioner applied for license on 24.2.1996 after completion of all legal formalities including making of security deposit and which application of the petitioner remained pending. While the application of the petitioner remained pending the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Public Interest Litigation arising from Writ Petition No. 202 of 1995 passed an order dated 12.12.1996 requiring each of the State Government to constitute an expert committee to determine number of saw mills and pursuant whereto the expert committee of the State of Bihar submitted its report on 27.4.2002 and following which detailed instructions were issued by the State of Bihar in its Forest and Environment Department on 8.7.2002. It is a matter of record that by subsequent orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a Central Empowered Committee was constituted for examining the respective reports furnished by the different State Governments as regarding the continuation of saw mills and for approval of the license to saw mill owners. As no final decision was forthcoming on the application filed by the petitioner, he filed a writ petition giving rise to C.W.J.C. No. 12380 of 2003 and a Bench of this Court upon consideration of the matter, by order dated 2.3.2006 placed at Annexure-8 of the writ petition directed the State Government to decide the application filed by the petitioner in one way or the other. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Conservator of Forest acting in compliance of the direction of this Court as contained in Annexure-8 has passed the 3 order dated 30.6.2009 in Appeal No. 12 of 2008. Learned counsel contends that as the application for grant of license filed by the petitioner as back as in 1996 had remained pending and the petitioner on his part had continued to deposit the renewal fee without receiving any intimation as regarding the rejection thereof or non- consideration of his application for grant of license, he continued to operate his saw mill after complying with the statutory provisions. As no formal license had been issued by the Licensing Authority and the matter remained pending, the respondent authorities of the Forest Department upon inspection of the saw mill of the petitioner and not finding any license, confiscated the saw mill and seized the wood found within the premises. It is in this background that the petitioner filed the appeal in question, before the Conservator of Forest giving rise to Appeal No. 12 of 2009. The said Appeal has been allowed by the order dated 30.6.2009 by the Conservator of Forest with a direction to the licensing authority i.e. the Divisional Forest Officer to grant license to the petitioner together with renewal for subsequent period within 15 days of passing of the said order. The appellate authority has taken note of the fact that although the petitioner had applied for license in the year 1996 but the licensing authority have simply sat over the matter without taking any decision. It is in this background that direction was issued to grant the license and its renewal. As the licensing authority failed to act pursuant to the order dated 30.6.2009 passed by the appellate authority, the present writ petition came to be filed, 4 seeking appropriate direction. When the matter was taken up a stand was taken by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that the Divisional Forest Officer had sought a review of the order dated 30.6.2009 by the Conservator of Forest, Muzaffarpur vide letter no. 2924 dated 27.4.2009 by reason of the fact that the said order, inter alia, was in the teeth of the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the case arising out of Writ Petition No. 202 of 1995 and the various direction issued thereunder. It so appears that the Conservator of Forest accepting the request made by the Divisional Forest Officer has reconsidered the matter and without drawing any formal proceedings for review of the order dated 30.6.2009, has passed an ex parte order dated 29.8.2011 recalling the earlier order dated 30.6.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order sought to be reviewed has been passed in a quasi judicial proceedings bearing Appeal No. 12 of 2008 and cannot be reviewed in an executive manner as having been done by the Conservator of Forest. It is submitted that even if the Conservator of Forest did find substance in the request made by the Divisional Forest Officer –cum-Licensing Authority, a formal proceeding ought to have been initiated and the petitioner should have been heard in the matter. I find substance in the contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. A bare perusal of the order dated 29.8.2011 which has been placed on record by way of Annexure-1 to the supplementary counter affidavit as well as 5 Annexure-1 to the Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No. 6426 of 2011 filed for questioning the validity of the same manifests that the same is without any details and has been passed in a routine manner. A review application arising from a statutory proceedings cannot be passed in an executive manner and without hearing the affected party i.e. petitioner. Considering the circumstances, the order dated 29.8.2011 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 3, the Conservator of Forest-cum-Appellate Authority, Muzaffarpur Circle, Muzaffarpur with a direction to pass a fresh order on the Review filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, in accordance with law after drawing a formal proceedings for Review and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to present his case. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition and the Interlocutory application are disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)