( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 673 OF 2010 Ashok s/o Shaligram Soni PETITIONER VERSUS The Dy. Conservator of Forests, Ahmednagar and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Y.S. Choudhari, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ambad, advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for the respondent No. 4/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 29th April, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner challenges the judgement and order rendered by the Adhoc District Judge, Kopargaon in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 32/2008. By that order, the temporary injunction order rendered by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) on application of the petitioners was declamped and the application was dismissed. ( 2 ) 3. The petitioners alleged that they run a Saw Mill styled as “Punjab Saw Mill” within the jurisdiction of Suregaon Gram Panchayat at village Kolpewadi. They alleged that the licence was issued by the Forest Department on 02-05-1986 to run the Saw Mill. They further alleged that the licence was not further renewed by the concerned department on the ground that the Saw Mill is situated within the radius of 10 kms. from the protected forest area. They were served with a notice to re-locate the premises of the Saw Mill. Consequently, they filed suit for declaration and prohibitory injunction. They also challenged legality of the notice served on them for the purpose of shifting of the Saw Mill at appropriate place outside the radius of 10 kms. from the protected forest area. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. 5. The fact that the Saw Mill of the petitioner is situated within 10 kms. radius of the protected forest area is not seriously controverted. The averments in the plaint purport to show that the application was filed by the ( 3 ) petitioner on 29-12-1972. They alleged that though such application was filed in 1972, yet, it was allowed in 1986. They contended that they were running the Saw Mill from 1972 till 2001. According to them, they are entitled to seek renewal of the licence. They submitted that the respondents had no business to interfere with the activity of the Saw Mill and the notice served on them was illegal. 6. The appellate Court noticed that the renewal of the licence could be allowed only if the case of the petitioners fall within the ambit of relevant Government Notification dated 16th July, 1981. It appears that by Govt. Notification dated 16th July, 1981, one of the conditions envisaged is that the Saw Mill is located at least 10 kms. outside the boundary of a reserved or protected forest. A Division Bench of this Court gave certain directions while disposing of writ petition No. 3652/2001. It appears that considering the directions issued by this Court, the Government policy was changed. The renewal of licence cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The petitioners would be entitled to claim licence only if they are found eligible in accordance with the conditions which are enumerated in the Govt. Notification. For, it is a matter of policy which is adopted in order to protect ecology ( 4 ) and environment. Considering the material placed on record and on evaluation of the fact situation, I do not find any perversity committed by the first Appellate Court while declamping the interim injunction order. 7. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioners are, however, at liberty to make appropriate representation to the competent authority for the renewal of licence as may be permissible under the law. The authorities may consider the representation of the petitioners, if it is within the parameters of eligibility and may decide the same within a reasonable period, expeditiously, as far as possible within six (6) months after the same is preferred. All the issues are kept open. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp673-2010