IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 17299 of 2009 1. RAJENDRA SINGH S/O LATE CHARAN SINGH R/O MOHALLA- KHAGAUL ROAD, MITHAPUR, P.S.- JAKKANPUR, DISTT.- PATNA PROPRIETOR OF M/S AZAD SAW MILL, JETHULI, KACHHI DARGAH, PATNA CITY, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT & FOREST DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENT & FOREST DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT & FOREST DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, PATNA FOREST CIRCLE, PATNA 5. THE LICENCING OFFICER CUM DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PATNA FOREST DIVISION, PATNA 6. SRI KALWANT SINGH S/O LATE DILIP SINGH R/O N.C. 4/A, S.B.I. COLONY, LOHIA NAGAR, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DISTT.- PATNA PROPRIETOR OF M/S KALWANT SINGH SAW MILL, MAIN ROAD KANKARBAGH, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DISTT.- PATNA *** For the petitioner : M/s Mrigank Mauli & Vinay Mistry, Advocates For the S t a t e : Mr AAG II For respondent No 6 : M/s Droncharya, Awadhesh Kumar, Advocates *** 4 19.04.2010 The petitioner and respondent No 6 are related. Petitioner had a saw mill at Patna City. Respondent No 6 has a saw mill at Kankarbagh. Respondent No 6 had taken the land on lease from two brothers who were equal shareholders in respect of the said land. Later on, it appears one of the brothers sold his share to petitioner. Petitioner applied for shifting of his unit from Patna City to the said land at Kankarbagh which he had purchased. He was granted permission to do so by the District Forest Officer. Simultaneously, the District Forest Officer 2 suspended the licence of respondent No 6 on the ground that half of the land on which respondent No 6 has his saw mill having been sold to the petitioner, respondent No 6 had lost control over that part of the land in terms of Section 7 (5) of the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulations) Act, 1900. Upon the licence of respondent No 6 being suspended, he filed statutory appeal under Section 166 of the Act before the Conservator of Forest. While admitting the appeal for hearing, the Conservator of Forest stayed the impugned order. Partiers having appeared, the matter was heard and by a curious order, the Conservator of Forest held that for the reasons noticed in the order, he would not proceed with the matter and would not hear the parties but doing so, he stayed the impugned order finally disposing of the appeal. The effect of that is that respondent No 6 is now not obliged to vacate the premises, thus, affecting a right of petitioner from moving into the said premises on basis of a purchase made by him. Without going into the merits and demerits of the allegations and counter allegations, in my view, an appeal cannot be disposed of in the manner in which it has been done. If for any reason, the Conservator of Forest recused himself then he should not have passed any interim order. Having passed an interim order, he should have heard the parties. In any view of the matter, in view of this Court, the matter has to be heard afresh by the appellate authority and decided on merits at the earliest but the problem is that the Conservator of Forest having recused himself from the proceedings who would hear the appeal? Having considered the matter, in my view, it would be 3 appropriate to direct the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna to designate someone who is competent and otherwise senior enough to decide the appeal on merits at the earliest. The Chief Conservator of Forest would make such an appointment within fifteen days of production of a copy of this order before him and the officer so appointed would be obliged to hear the matter on merits and decide the same expeditiously preferably within one month of the production of a copy of the order of this Court before him. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)