IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2072 of 2010 1. RAM BAHADUR SHARMA S/O LATE GANGA RAM SHARMA PROPRIETOR OF M/S RAM BAHADUR SAW MILL, R/O VILL- SAPHA BAIDHYANATHPUR, P.S SOUR BAZAR, DISTT- SAHARSA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPT. OF FOREST & ENVIRONMENT, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA, BIHAR 2. THE CONSERVATOR OF ROEST CUM COMPETENT OFFICER, PURNEA FOREST CIRCLE PURNEA 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST CUM LICENSING AUTHORITY FOREST DIVISION KOSHI COLONY, P.S & DISTT- SAHARSA ----------- 2/ 18/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, a saw mill owner, is aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2004, as affirmed in appeal No.9(S)/05 by order dated 21.1.2006 canceling his saw mill licence. It needs to be noticed that the writ application was then filed on 4.2.2010 only. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Baijnathpur is a Gram Panchayat. Village- Sapaha, where the petitioner has his residence, is one of the villages of which the Gram Panchayat is constituted. The petitioner in his application form was required to furnish his residential address in Clause-3 which he did. The column with regard to the location of the saw mill simply states that the lands in which it was being established were Raiyati lands. The respondents issued him a show cause notice on 5.6.2004 that he had established the saw mill not at village- Sapaha, 2 but at Baijnathpur. They were wrongly mixing up his residential address with the location of the saw mill. So long as it was within Baijnathpur Gram Panchayat, the petitioner cannot be alleged to have changed the location of the licenced premises. The second ground in the original order dated 25.11.2004 that the petitioner was not filing returns in time, is beyond the show cause notice dated 5.6.2004 vitiating the order on that ground. Learned counsel for the State strenuously sought to persuade the Court that the licence was for the village- Sapaha. The establishment at Baijnathpur of the saw mill was a violation of the conditions of the licence. But, he has not been able to distinguish that village- Sapaha was not a part of Baijnathpur Gram Panchayat and that the petitioner in Column-2 of the application was furnishing his own residential address only. No statement has been made in the counter affidavit that the seniority list or the number of licences to be granted were different at village- Sapaha and in other areas of the Baijnathpur Gram Panchayat and had its ramifications for grant of adequate number of saw mill licences. Had the saw mill been located outside the location of Baijnathpur Panchayat the matter would have been entirely different. The report of the Range Officer of the Department of Forest of concerned range dated 22.2.2004 confirming 3 that the saw mill had existed at the present location ever since its inception in 1999 has not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit while dealing with the same in paragraph-16. Whether it be an order founded on the grounds beyond the show cause or the factual location of the saw mill, the Court finds it difficult to sustain the original order dated 25.11.2004 and the appellate order dated 21.1.2006. Both orders are accordingly set aside. Needless to state that this shall not result in immediate restoration of the licensee status of the petitioner. Keeping in mind that he has also inordinately delayed in moving the Court, it is observed that if the petitioner applies afresh for a saw mill licence, his application is required to be considered in accordance with law when the impugned orders can be of no consideration or impediment in the same. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)