HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Vs. '2. 4. Shyain Lal Dhankar, Aged about 54 years, S/o. Shri. Dhirpal Dliankar, R/o. Viliage Rajoli, Talisil Gunderdehi, Distt. Diirg (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretar}r, Forest Departiaent, D.K.S.Bhawaa, Raipur (CG) Divisional Forest Oflicer, Dur^ Circle Durg(CG) 3. Appellate AuttLroity & Couservator of Forest, Durg Ciixsle, Distt. Diu-s (CG) The District Durg (CG) Tafasildar, GunderdeM, [SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satisli K. Agaihotri, J.) D.N, D^ japati, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arviiid Dubey, Panel Lawyer for fiie State. ETH 1. Tue petitioner, by this petition impugns tlie order dated 24.10,2007 disiaissiag the appeal passed by the AppeUate Authroity- Consei'vator of Forest, Circle Durg, Durg, wherein flie renewal of fh.e license to iastail and run saw -niffi on KIiasra No. 69/2 at village RajoU, Tahsil Gunderdehi was under consideration. 2. The Appellate Aufliorit)' found fhat the petitioner had iastatled the saw-mul not at the allotted place i.e. Khasra No. 69/2 (old number) new nuiiiber 137 but on Kbasra No. 141, fherefore fhe appeal oftlie petitioner was disiaissed, as the dispute wifh regard to the •^" :'w'! ^v":^; iastallation of saw-iiull on some other place was peHdiag cousideiation before Tahsildar, Gunderdehi. Leamed counsel has pointed out certain reports iudicating fhat fhis is aot correct. The petitioner has instaUed the llcensed saw inUl at the saiae place. 3. It is not disputed by fhe leamed counsel for the petitioner tliat the dispute is pendiag considerafion before Tahsildar. 4- Be that as it inay, the questioa with regaixl to installation of saw inill at fhe allotted place, caniiot be decided by fhis Court. The oid.er passed by fhe AppeUate Auftiority-Conseivator of Forest (Annexure P/ 1) does not suffer fi'om. aay UTegLUarity, perversity or illegalit}-. 5. Thus, no tnterference is warraated. Accordingly the petition is disinissed. . Suguna Sd/- Satish K. Agi Judge