HjGHCOURTOF.iUDlCATURE^HHAmSGARH^BIi-ASPUR \. SiNGLEBENCH : HON'BLESHRi S.R. NAYAK, C.J. WRiT PETITIONWQ.2363 QF2001 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS versus 1. 2. 3. Ramprakash Singh Chouhan, S/o Ramvilas Singh, sged about 41 years, resident of Sykma, Tehsil Konta, Oistriet Dantewada(Chhattisgarh) State 'of Chhattisgarh through the Secrsfary, •Department of Forest, iVlantralaya, D.K. Building, Raipur (Ciillattisgarh) CQnservator of Forest, Jagcialpur Cirele, Jagdalpur, DistnctBastar(Chhattisgarh) Divisional Forest OfRcer, South Bastar Forest Division ••' (Generai), Sukma, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Present : ShriRaieevShrivasteva.learnedcounseifofthepetrtioner. Shri N.K.Agrawal, leamed Dy. A.<3, forthSState ofGG. ORALORDER (Passecfbn5tnMay,2006) ThepetitiOnerwasholdingaliCenceofsaw-mittundertheprovisions of Madhya Pradesh Kashth Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984 (for short "the Adhiniyam"). inthe year 1997, hesought renewal pf the licence, which was rejected by Divisional Forest Qfficer, South Bastar Forest Division (General), Sukma, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh), the 3rd respondent herein. Feeling aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Conservator of Forest, Jagdalpur Circle, Jagdafpur, Djstrict Bastar the 2 Fesponderit herein. That appea! was atso dismissed. The respondents No. 2 and 3 refused to renew the licencs on the ground that the area of operation of the saw-mill was proposed to be declared as prohibited area, in terms of Section 5(1) of tiae ^^sl^^^^^-^.-ul^^^^^ ^f^ I'-^^jir^--^^'^*1^ ^^.•^^.^^&'s^i^ E-i' •.^'•- •j ^d^^^iJ'K^i^ 1sSsKS^^S^^^^w^S, {- B; a,- Adhiniyam and also on the ground that the Apex Court has prohibited felling oftrees in fhe entire Bastar District. Hence, this writ petition. (2) Heard learned counse! appearing for the parties. The reasons stated by the respondents 2 and 3 for refusing torenew the licence could not be faulted with and they are weighty and substantive and in accordance with !aw. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the period of prohibitio'n expired and application of his cllent wouid be directed to be considered on merit for grant of licence. Whether the petitioner has subsequently made any appiication for grant of licence/renewal of licence is not clear from the documents iaid before the Court. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, 1 direct that if application of the petitioner for grant of licence/renewal of licence is pending for consideration, the concerned respondent-authorities shall consider the same in accordance with iaw without much ioss of time. No costs. Sd/- ChiefJusticie -'!