IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6750 of 2008 M/S RAJENDRA TIMBER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR For the Petitioner : Mr. Mrigank Mauli Mr. Vinay Mistry For the State : G.P.-6 -------------------- 05 13.08.2008 Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 18.04.2008, as contained in Memo No. 742 of the Licensing Officer- cum-Forest Range Officer, Patna, by which he has purported to suspend the saw mill licence granted to the petitioner under the provisions of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990. The proceedings were initiated in the year 2006. In the show cause notice, it is stated that the petitioner had a licence for operating saw mill, but, on inspection, it was found that he was storing wood at another place across the road, which was not licensed place of the saw mill. The petitioner filed his reply clearly stating that he had a licence granted under the provisions of the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990 and the Rules framed thereunder. Even, as per the inspection report, he has not changed the site of his “saw mill”. The only thing that had happened was that the landlord had required petitioner to surrender a part of his leased land to enable the landlord to make construction, thereon, in lieu, whereof, the petitioner was given land across the road for storage of wood. Undisputedly, no sawing activity either mechanically or manually was ever carried out on that plot or noticed on that plot. It was, thus, submitted that there is no - 2 - change in the premises or precincts of the “licensed saw mill” and there is no violation of any Act or Rules framed, thereunder. Notwithstanding, the aforesaid, in terms of Section 7 (5) (b), the Licensing Authority has suspended the licence of the petitioner, pending enquiry. While doing so, he has also noticed one fact that on telephonic information 3-4 persons have informed him that he carries on his sawing business after Sun down. These informations he received on phone and was being enquired into. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that action to suspend petitioner’s licence, which is granted under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed, thereunder, are wholly without jurisdiction. Even on reading the notice no contravention is established. State has filed a counter affidavit and sought to justify its actions. As the pleadings are completed, with consent of parties this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Under the Act, “saw mill” and “saw pit” are defined under Sections 2 (g) & (h) and Section 5 deals with licence respectively which are quoted hereunder: “Section 2 (g) “saw mill” means the plant and machinery with which and the premises including the precincts thereof in which or in any part of which sawing is carried on with the aid of electrical or mechanical power;” (h) “saw pit” means a - 3 - place where wood is sawn by manually- operated saws;” “Section 5. Application for licence.- On and from the appointed day;- (a)no person shall establish a saw mill or a saw pit except under the authority and subject to the conditions of a licence granted in that behalf under this Act; (b) no person shall operate a saw mill or a saw pit in existence on the said date, unless he is granted a licence in that behalf under this Act on an application made by such person within a period of thirty days from such date;” Section 5 is the obligation to take out a licence for setting up either a “saw mill” or a “saw pit”. A reference to the above provisions would clearly show that licence is required to set up and operate a saw mill or a saw pit under the Act and the Rules. No licence is required for storage of timber, simplictor. Provisions are made that whatever timber is found stored for the purpose of sawing must be accountable, meaning thereby, books of accounts in respect therof, should be maintained. The licensed premises is the premises where the saw mill or saw pit is established and nothing beyond that. In my view, learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that on its own showing the alleged contravention is of mere storage of timber across the road from - 4 - where the licensed saw mill is located. The storage facility is by itself not required to be licensed. No sawing activity is found at the separate storage place. No permission or intimation is required to be taken or given. Therefore, having a storage space, simplictor, for timber across the road from the saw mill is no contravention of the provisions of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act or the Rules framed, thereunder. Admittedly, the saw mill itself was licensed and nothing wrong therein was found, thus, the very initiation of the proceedings for suspension/cancellation was wholly without jurisdiction, misconceived in fact and in law. The very initiation being is wholly without jurisdiction. The ultimate order cannot be sustained and has to be quashed, accordingly, as even in the final order no contravention is established. Coming to the second ground mentioned in the order, having regard to received complaint on phone, firstly, it is too vague an allegation, because, if authorities were permitted to take punitive action on basis of those alleged telephonic complain, then, no businessman in the country would be saved. Moreover, this information was not a part of show cause nor petitioner was required to explain his position in this regard. Mere, on hearsay, a punitive action is not contemplated under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Further, learned counsel is correct in submitting that what is meant by the impugned order, when it says that pending enquiry the licence is being suspended is not understood. What is the enquiry pending, when was it initiated, what is it scope, is all left to - 5 - imagination? Moreover, it has been repeatedly held by Courts including the judgment in the case of P.R. Nayak Vs. Union of India AIR 1972 Supreme Court 554, wherein, it was held that power to suspend is statutory power and unless pending enquiry power to suspend is conferred, there is no jurisdiction to order an interim suspension. The reason is obvious, as suspension of business causes irreparable loss and injury, it is a serious blow on the right under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. It takes away freedom of trade and therefore it can only be upheld if it is done in accordance with law and law means law made by legislature and not by executive fiat. Thus, there being no provision for interim suspension, the order is bad on that account, as well. Therefore, the very initiation of proceeding is wholly without jurisdiction and the order is also without jurisdiction. Both are quashed. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.) Trivedi./