IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9118 of 2011 M/S JAY LAXMI SAW MILLS AND FURNITURE, SHEOGANJ, P.O. TELDIHA, POLICE STATION MADANPUR, DISTRICT AURANGABAD A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SURENDRA SINGH, ALIAS SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE KAMDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SHEOGANJ, P.O. TELDIHA, P.S. MADANPUR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD(BIHAR). …..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SICHAI BHAWAN, SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, 4TH FLOOR, TECHNOLOGY BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA COM- CHAIRMEN SELECTION COMMISSION OF SAW MILLS, GAYA, DISTRICT-GAYA. 4. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, AURANGABAD, CIRCLE, AURANGABAD. 5. THE LICENSING AUTHORITY, CUM-DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, AURANGABAD, FOREST DIVISION, AURANGABAD. …..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner: Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr Pawan Kumar Mishra, Advocate. ----------- 02. 21.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing respondent-authorities not to disturb the trade and business of the petitioner and to grant/renew the licenses in favour of the petitioner and for quashing the Seniority Lists issued by respondents selecting the saw mills and also for challenging Memos/Letters issued against the petitioner directing him to immediately close down his saw mill and further to dispose of the stocks of timbers within the time frame. The petitioner has also challenged the circulars issued by the respondents laying down - 2 - the arbitrary criteria for selecting the seniority of the saw mills and also for directing the respondents to prepare fresh list of saw mills after re-examining the seniority as per the recommendation dated 11.06.2008 made by the Central Empowered Committee which was approved by Supreme Court and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. The matter is a contested one and both the parties are raising their respective claims. Similar matter had arisen earlier in C.W.J.C. No.4207 of 2011 and the only difference between that case and the instant case is that in the earlier case the father of the petitioner was the licensee whereas in the instant cases the petitioner is the licensee. This fact hardly affects the merit of the case. In the said circumstances, these cases are also disposed of in terms of order dated 08.03.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No.4207 of 2011. 4. The petitioner has got an alternative remedy and hence he should prefer appeal against the impugned decisions taken by the District Level Committee. If such appeal filed along with a copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to filing of this writ petition and shall decide the said appeal on merits expeditiously preferably within a period of four months thereafter keeping in view the order of the Apex Court dated 30.01.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 460 of 2004 and other analogous cases as well as the decision dated 04.09.2009 - 3 - passed in WP(C) No. 202 of 1995 (Annexures 4 and 5, respectively ) and the steps taken by the Government in the light of the said decisions. If such appeal is filed as per the direction given above, the operation of the order impugned in this writ petition shall remain stayed till disposal of the concerned appeal. Devendra/ (S.N. Hussain, J.)