IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7467 of 2006 RAM BALI PASWAN, SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA PASWAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIMRI, P.S. BIDYAPATI NAGAR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR, PROPRIETOR OF TARKESHWAR SAW MILL, VILLAGE AND P.O. SIMRI, P.S. BIDYAPATI NAGAR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CUM CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, PURNEA CIRCLE, PURNIA. 4. THE LICENSING AUTHORITY CUM SUB-DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, EXTENSION FOREST DIVISION, BEGUSARAI. ----------- 02. 19.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time was holder of saw mill licence bearing No.72/95. He has filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 16.1.2003, Annexure-2 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Begusarai, whereunder request of the petitioner to renew his aforesaid saw mill licence for the year 2003 has been refused on the ground that monitoring committee has not recommended continuation of his saw mill in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Versus Union of India & Others, reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1233. He is 2 further aggrieved by the order dated 14.5.2005, Annexure-3 whereunder his saw mill has been directed to be closed in the light of the aforesaid order dated 16.1.2003. Petitioner assailed the aforesaid two orders by filing appeal No.02B/2003 which was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority cum Conservator of Forests, Purnea under order dated 15.5.2007, Annexure-8. 3. By filing present writ petition the aforesaid three orders have been challenged on the ground that holders of saw mill licence bearing nos.77 of 1995, 96, 97 of 1997 who established their saw mill in the same Vidyapati Nagar block of Samastimpur district have been allowed to continue the operation of their saw mills but the licence of the petitioner, although granted earlier to the aforesaid three licensees has not been renewed on the ground that petitioner has not been included in the list finalized by the monitoring committee. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that if the saw mill of the petitioner was not included in the list prepared by the monitoring committee the subsequent licensees bearing licence nos.77 of 1995, 3 96, 97 of 1997 also could not have been included in the said list but it appears from the list appended with letter no.1396 dated 11.5.2007, Annexure-9 of the State Government addressed to the petitioner that aforesaid licensees who have also established their saw mill in the same Vidyapati Nagar block of Samastimpur have been allowed to operate their saw mills. It is submitted that as the aforesaid licensees have been allowed to operate their saw mill petitioner should also be given the same opportunity which has been allowed to the three licensees about whom statement has been noted above. 5. Counsel for the State submitted that in the light of the fact that licensees who have obtained licence after the petitioner have been allowed to operate their saw mill, such fact is required to be considered by the authorities and this Court should direct the Divisional Forest Officer concerned or the appellate authority to reconsider the matter. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties, I direct the petitioner to appear before the Prescribed Authority cum Conservator of Forest, Muzaffarpur, 4 Circle Muzaffarpur to reconsider the request of the petitioner to allow him to operate his saw mill in the light of the instruction of the State Government contained in letter bearing no.1396 dated 11.5.2007, Annexure-9 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. Request of the petitioner be considered by the Prescribed Authority cum Conservator of Forest, Muzaffarpur, as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by passing a speaking order. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)