IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46812 of 2007 BASUDEO PRASAD, SON OF LATE HIRA SAO, RESIDENT OF GOLA ROAD, P.S.- NAWADA, DISTRICT- NAWADA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SRI MUKUL KUMAR SINHA, LABOUR SUPERINTENDENT, NAWADA. 3. SRI S.M. WASIMUL HAQUE, PEON ON THE OFFICE OF LABOUR SUPERINTENDENT, NAWADA For the petitioner : Mr. D.N. Tiwari , Advocate. For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy ‘Raman’, A.P.P. ----------- 4 19.03.2010 Heard both sides. The petitioner raises a grievance in the present application with respect to the order dated 10th March, 2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in G.O. Case no. 69 of 2006 whereby cognizance under Sections 32 and 34 of Bihar Shops and Establishment Act has been taken. Complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2 (Labour Superintendent) is to the effect that the petitioner was owner of M/s Baishno Devi Trading Company, Gola Road, Nawada and was found operating the Saw Mill without any valid licence. This was clear violation of Section 6 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act read with rule 3(i) of the Rules framed thereunder. Petitioner draws attention of this court to the licences issued in favour of M/S Lucky Flour Mill as well as M/s Baishno Devi Trading Company, Gola Road, Nawada. It is the contention of the petitioner that the two brothers namely Sri Vinod Prasad and the present petitioner are licencees under the Act and are 2 running a Saw Mill in the name and style as M/s Baishno Devi Trading Company, Gola Road, Nawada and M/s Lucky Flour Mill respectively. Those licences are on record as annexures- 4 and 5. Mr. Raman, learned A.P.P. however, supported the impugned order and contended that the petitioner shall have remedy of filing appropriate application for discharge. This court finds from those documents that they were issued in the form prescribed under the Act and was/were valid until 31.12.2006. In that view of the matter, this court is convinced that the petitioner was running a Saw Mill under valid licence/permission. In this situation, continuation of proceeding shall be sheer abuse of the process of the court. For the reasons aforementioned, the application is allowed. The order dated 10th March 2006 passed in G.O. Case no. 69 of 2006 is hereby quashed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )