IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1595 of 2009 1. M/S SRI LAKSHMI INDUSTRIES, MAGARDAHI, WARD NO. 15, SAMASTIPUR, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR AMARESH KUMAR 2. AMARESH KUMAR S/O SRI MAHESH SHARMA R/O AT : P.O. AND P.S.- MAGARDAHI, WARD NO. 15, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR, PROPRIETOR OF M/S SRI LAKSHMI INDUSTRIES, MAGARDAHI, WARD NO. 15, SAMASTIPUR ….. Petitioners/Appellants Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF FORESTS AND ENVIRONMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAVAN, SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, FORESTS AND ENVIRONMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, SINCHAI BHAVAN, SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, FORESTS AND ENVIRONMENT DEPTT., PURNIA 4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, FORESTS AND ENVIRONMENT DEPTT., BEGUSARAI 5. THE RANGE OFFICER, FORESTS AND ENVIRONMENT DEPTT., SAMASTIPUR …… Respondents-Respondents ----------- For the appellant :- Mr. Chitran Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate For the State :- A.A.G. 9 4/- 21.01.2011 The main contention of the learned Sr. Counsel is that the learned single Judge in his order dated 20.11.2009 has not taken note of the fact that the authorities have not adjudicated the issue whether the appellants have been granted license for running Saw Mill on the two plots or on a single plot. According to the learned Sr. Counsel, the license is not renewed but in 2 fact he has already submitted his application referring two plot Nos. with Khata No. but however, the licensing authority has granted the license mentioning one plot number and khata number of the other plot . The learned Sr. Counsel also submits that even though, the authorities have not taken note of the fact, which was being submitted by way of representation and refused the renewal of license in the year 2002, subsequently, preferred from non-cryptic order and aggrieved by the appellants preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. However, in view of the fact that the appellants’ representation with reference to the situation of granting of license in 2 khata numbers which remained undisputed by the respondents under above circumstances but at this juncture, learned Sr. counsel seeks permission to withdraw the L.P.A. with a liberty to file fresh application for renewal of the license referring to the anomaly in license with regard to the earmarking of the plots and khata numbers and the same may be directed to be considered by the respondent authorities in accordance with law. Heard learned counsel for the State. 3 Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the L.P.A. with liberty to make representation as stated above and the same should be disposed of by the respondent No. 4, Divisional Forest Officer, Forests and Environment Department, Begusarai without being influenced by the observation made by the learned single Judge as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the L.P.A. is dismissed as withdrawn. Ashwini/Ranjan (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.)