IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8779 of 2009 M/S VISHWAKARMA FURNITURE WORK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.8781 of 2009 M/S SUDHANSHU SAW MILL,CHANDI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.8831 of 2009 M/S KRISHNA FURNITURE & SAW MI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Mrigank Mauli,Advocate Mr. Vinay Mistry, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Binita Singh, AC to AAG 3 2 29.7.2009 As in all these writ petitions bearing C.W.J.C.Nos.8779, 8781 and 8831 of 2009 common question of law arise and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The common case of all these petitioners is that they were granted licences to run Saw Mills in the year 1997, 1996 and 1994 respectively. The Apex Court in the case of T.N.Godavarman on 12.2.1996 issued certain directions for protection of forest of the country and in the process issued certain directions for safeguarding its interest. One of the directions was to examine the sustainable capacity of the forest of the State qua its Saw Mill and timber based industries and number of such existing Saw Mill which could safely be sustained. In order to give effect to the orders of the Apex Court the State constituted various Expert Committee. The first committee 2 was constituted in the year 1997; the second committee was constituted on 5.4.2002 and the third committee was constituted on 14.11.2003. Thereafter the fourth committee was constituted. Finally, the Special Committee constituted by the Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar submitted its recommendation vide its letter no.4405 dated 9.12.2005 holding the resolution no.760E dated 13.11.2003 to be not in consonance with the recommendation of the Central Empowered Committee as well as the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thereafter the respondent no.2 wrote a letter dated 26.9.2006 to the Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest, Government of Bihar to stay the resolution no.760E dated 13.11.2003. On 11.6.2008 even the Central Empowered Committee recommended that the licensed saw mills may not be closed till seniority list is finalized. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not in dispute that their saw mills were established much before the year 1997 and two of the petitioners are even the licensees prior to 12.12.1996 itself. He further submits that this court in large number of cases have observed that in case the petitioners were granted licence under the Bihar Saw Mills Regulation Act, 1990 and the rules framed there under, then they would not be asked to be closed down nor would their renewal be refused till further orders of the court. The licenses of the petitioners were renewed ever since they were granted licence in the year 1997, 1996 and 1994 respectively till the passing of the impugned order. 3 KHAN Learned counsel for the State submits that as the petitioners did not figure among the select list constituted by the earlier Committee, they were asked to close down and their licences were not renewed. This court finds that the Central Empowered Committee on 11.6.2008 have recommended that till the seniority list is finalized, the licensed saw mills may not be closed. In this view of the matter, this court passes similar orders as were passed in the other batch of cases, as contained in Annexure-4 series in C.W.J.C.No.8779 of 2009, and directs that the saw mills of the petitioners would not be asked to close nor would their renewal be refused as they are licensee of the years 1997, 1996 and 1994 respectively till seniority list is finalized in terms of the recommendation of the Central Empowered Committee. However, the respondents would be at liberty to issue fresh order in terms of any subsequent report of State Committee approved by the Central Empowered Committee or Apex Court. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)