IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.565 of 2009 1. M/S SHRI LAKSHMI INDUSTRIES, Magardahi, Ward No. 15, Samastipur, through its Proprietor, Amresh Kumar. 2. Amresh Kumar, son of Shri Mahesh Sharma, resident of at and P.S. Magardahi, Ward No.15, District – Samastipur, Proprietor of M/S. Lakshmi Industries, Magardahi, Ward No.15, Samastipur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Forest & Environment Department, Government of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Forest & Environment Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Conservator of Forests, Forest and Environment Department, Patna. 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest and Environment Department, Begusarai. 5. The Range Officer, Forest and Environment Department, Samastipur. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. N K Agrawal, Senior Advocate. For the State : Mr. J P Karn, AAG-9 and Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG-9. --------------- 03. 20/11/2009 The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (respondent No.2) has issued a letter dated 15.6.2007 to the petitioner stating therein that his representation dated 18.5.2007 and the reminder dated 20.6.2007 do not require any reconsideration by the department since his saw mill licence stood cancelled by the licensing authority way back in the year 2003 vide annexure-3 and the same was also affirmed in Appeal No.4B/ 2003 by the appellate authority vide order dated 8.2.2004, contained in annexure-2. The petitioners now want quashing of the said communication along with the order contained in ananexure-2 and annexure-3. Petitioner No.1 is a firm engaged in saw mill business and petitioner No.2 is the proprietor. The business of saw mill in the State of Bihar is regulated by State Act known as Bihar Saw Mill - 2 - (Regulation) Act, 1990. By virtue of various provisions, licence was a must, to engage in business or trade of saw mill. An application was made by the petitioners sometime in the year 1993 for grant of a licence for saw mill as well dealing with ply wood. Licence no. 30/1994 came to be issued by the licensing authority. The saw mill in question was established in village Birsinghpur, Kalyanpur, in the district of Samastipur. After running the said saw mill for some time at the original place petitioners wanted to shift the same to another location and place known as Magardahi, in Ward No.15 in Samastipur district, bearing Plot No. 639, Khata No. 80 and 168, Khesera no. 506. The application for shifting was made before the Divisional Forest Officer on 3.11.2001. Permission was granted and it is also accepted that the petitioners shifted their operation to the new location at Magardahi. Revised licence accordingly came to be issued on 27.1.2002. Range Officer of the Forests of Samastipur demanded submission of monthly store report vide his letter dated 27.11.2002 since no such monthly report was being submitted by the petitioners after shifting. Thereafter another letter dated 5.12.2002, which was a show cause, also came to be issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Begusarai as to why his licence should not be cancelled for not submitting store report, for unauthorized operation of saw mill/pilling machine in two places/premises as well as non- maintenance of accounts of the wood which was in violation of Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act. - 3 - It is stated that the petitioners offered their explanation but by a cryptic order contained in annexure-3, the licence came to be cancelled. The appeal filed against the said order upheld the order of cancellation for the reasons indicated therein vide order dated 8.2.2004. The petitioners later filed a representation on 18.5.2007. They received a response from the respondents on 15.6.2007 (Annexure-1), when the petitioners decided to file the present writ application in the year 2009. Submission of the learned senior counsel is that petitioners had filed returns as demanded by the Range Officer but the same was not being accepted or acknowledged by the officials. The Unit was run in two different places because shifting was permitted by the licensing authority and no proper opportunity of hearing or any reason came to be assigned before cancellation. They tried to settle the matter with the respondents and therefore, they filed the present writ application in the year 2009 when they did not get any proper response. Counsel for the State however submits that the order of cancellation was passed in the year 2003. The appellate order affirmed the cancellation of licence in the year 2004. After the said order there was no occasion for the petitioners to file representation before the Chief Conservator of Forests in 2007 i.e. after almost three years and wait for another three years to file the present writ application and that too when they were simply informed by the Chief Conservator of Forests that their representation did not merit - 4 - consideration. The representation was only filed with the object of filling up the gap because the petitioners had no explanation for not challenging the order/orders in question well in time when they came to be passed in the year 2003-04. Further it is also urged that the appellate order states the reasons for cancellation of the licence of the petitioners. It is the petitioners to blame for their present fate because getting advantage of shifting order they started running two units unauthorisedly, one at the original place where saw mill was initially set up and the other at the newly shifted place. There is no provision under any law to run two units on one licence. Obviously the petitioners had indulged in illegal act and the said fact was found on enquiry and inspection and that itself is a good ground for cancellation of the licence. The explanation offered by the learned senior counsel representing the petitioners as to why two separate units were being run, is of no avail in the face of law and procedure. The explanation offered by the petitioner that the returns had been field but were not accepted is also far fetched because there is no reason why respondents would issue notice to the petitioners if the returns had been filed regularly and further they will not accept the return if at all it was filed. This is only an after- thought. The petitioners knew the actual state of affairs and that was the reason why the petitioners had reconciled to the situation after the orders contained in annexures 2 and 3 came to be passed. May be subsequently as an after-thought, just for making out a case they filed a representation and approached the High Court after almost 5 - 5 - years of the impugned orders were passed. There are unexplained areas in this regard on behalf of petitioners and that by itself does not enthuse the Court to come to their rescue. The explanations offered by them with regard to the allegations made are neither convincing nor in conformity with the requirement of the Regulation. Their mere statement that the saw mill was being run at one place and the so-called pasting unit is run at another place is not enough because terms of the licence clearly stated as to where the saw mill was to be located on shifting and the petitioners had no right to run their business or activity at a place from where the licence already stood withdrawn. No case of arbitrariness is made out in the decision taken by the respondent authorities. In view of the same the writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)