IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1286 of 2005 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus VINA ARRA MILL ----------- 13 5.5.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent no.1. On going through the order dated 6.6.2002 of the Conservator of Forest, Muzaffarpur, who is admitted to be the appellate authority under Section 12 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990, as contained in Annexure-6 to the Letters Patent Appeal, we find that the said order has not been disputed or challenged by either the writ petitioner or the respondent State. Because of non-implementation of that order, the writ petitioner has been forced to come to this court twice. On going through the order under appeal dated 8.8.2005, we find that the direction of the writ court is now to give effect to the appellate order contained in Annexure -6 in letter as well as spirit. Issue of duplicate or original licence as per order of the appellate authority cannot amount to issue of a fresh licence rather it shall be governed by the terms and conditions applicable in the year, 1994 when the petitioner had applied for licence along with all necessary fees and details and his prayer for licence had stood allowed. On the asking of the authorities, as held in Annexure -6, the petitioner had also deposited fees for renewal of licence from time to time. In such circumstances when the original licence was not handed over to the writ petitioner although processes have been filed and acknowledged in some official communication notices by the appellate authority, one 2 can only conclude that the licecne issued in favour of the petitioner in the files has been subjected to theft or mischief in the office of the concerned Division Forest Officer at Darbhanga. The petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer on account of such mischief. As noticed by the appellate authority even the original file has been made traceless when the same was required to be produced before the appellate authority. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the writ court dated 8.8.2005. Directions issued by the writ court must be complied with forthwith and if the same are not complied with within four weeks from today then the petitioner must be compensated by paying him Rs.10,000/- by way of consolidated cost, which may be recovered from the officer/employee found responsible for delay. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. ( Shiva Kirti Singh , J.) Neyaz/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)