IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3342 of 2011 MAHENDRA THAKUR & ANR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3. 12.05.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the State, the Bihar State Finance Corporation (in short ‘BSFC’) and the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (in short “BIADA’). The petitioners claim to be auction purchasers of the premises in question located at the Industrial Area, Pandaul from the BSFC, the erstwhile owner being Respondent no. 7. Possession has been claimed since 24.8.2002. They desire grant of a saw mill licence. The grievance that acts were being done malafide by the State authorities to favour Respondent no. 7 is not considered relevant as the temporary licence granted to Respondent no. 7 by which the petitioners are aggrieved has lost its validity on 31.12.2010. In any event of the matter, if the petitioners are in possession of the premises as claimed by them the licence cannot be granted to a third person to run a saw mill on the same. It is therefore not considered necessary to issue notice to Respondent no. 7 at this stage. Counsel for the BSFC confirms the auction sale. Counsel for the BIADA does not deny the auction sale to the petitioner and has not placed any material to controvert the stand of the petitioners that possession has been handed over to them on 24.8.2002. The order of cancellation dated 31.8.2007 on record pertains to the erstwhile owner i.e. Respondent no. 7 or the petitioners is not very clear. Counsel for the State has emphasised that the petitioners had come to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 8091 of 2008 with a similar relief and it is apparent from the order dated 12.8.2008 passed therein that the writ petition is still pending. Counsel for the petitioners submits that LPA No. 350 of 2008 (referred to in CWJC No. 8091 of 2008) has been preferred by BIADA when similar orders of cancellation of the settlement as dated 31.8.2007 have been set aside by a Bench of this Court. The Court is not concerned with those matters. If the petitioners claim to be in lawful possession of the premises auction sold to them and there are no orders of restraint from a competent authority/court of law with regard to their possession, enjoyment and user, the Forest Department was obliged to consider their prayer for grant of a licence upon the premises in terms of the order dated 12.8.2008 in CWJC No. 8091 of 2008 rather than multiplying litigations. There has to be a fresh grant of licence in law and there is no occasion for transfer of any licence that may have been possessed by another before auction. Needless to state that apart from the aforesaid conditions, the petitioners shall also have to satisfy the Forest Department that they fulfill all other conditions for grant of licence. The present order shall not be construed as mandatory direction for grant of licence but only to consider the grant of licence in accordance with the law/guidelines laid by the Supreme Court. If the petitioners have applied or apply for grant of licence in the statutory manner as per law, let the Department of Forest consider the same in light of the discussions contained in the present order and dispose it by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before him. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)