IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.783 of 2009 1. Vrindawan Ojha Partner of M/S. Ramjee Sharma Saw Mill son of Late Sheojag Ojha, resident of Ojha Patti Semaria, P.S. Shahpur, District Bhojpur. 2. Ramjee Sharma M/S. Ramjee Sharma Proprietor and owner son of late Ramcharitra Sharma resident of village Ramgarh, P.S., Brahampur, District Buxar. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary Environment and Forest, Patna, Bihar. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Patna, Bihar. 3. The Principal Conservator of Forest, Patna, Bihar. 4. The Conservator of Forest, Patna, Bihar. 5. The Divisional Forest Officer-cum-licensing authority, Ara, Bhojpur. 6. The Range Officer, Buxar, Bihar. ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Rajendra Nath Sinha. For the Respondents :- Mr. Subodh Kumar Barnwal, A.C. to G.P. XVI ----- 2 31/08/2009 Heard Mr. Rajendra Nath Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Subodh Kumar Barnwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents State. The present appellants had filed appeal before the District Judge challenging original order dated 25.10.2004 passed by the Principal Conservator of Forest, Patna (respondent no. 3). The Additional District Judge, Buxar by order dated 6.3.2006 remanded the matter to the Principal Conservator of Forest, Patna for fresh consideration and while remanding the case also observed that the saw mill in question cannot be operated without obtaining license from the competent authority. The present appellants after a lapse of about three years filed C.W.J.C. No. 1856 of 2009 contending that the Additional District Judge had no power to remand the matter for fresh - 2 - consideration as it is stated in the government order creating appellate forum that the order of the appellate authority would be final which according to the learned counsel for the appellants would mean that he can only pass final order either allowing or dismissing the appeal but he cannot remand. The other contention is to the effect that the District Judge does not have any power of passing any interim order but in the order impugned the learned Additional District Judge passed the interim order to the effect that without obtaining proper license from the competent authority, the saw mill cannot be operated which is contrary to the observation of the Supreme Court and the Government Order creating appellate forum. The learned Single Judge has repelled such contention by observing that the appellate authority in absence of any specific embargo has also the power to remand the matter. Similarly, the learned Single Judge also observed that the prohibition to grant interim order only means that while the matter remains pending, the District Judge cannot direct the running of the saw mill. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently repeated the argument which had been made before the learned Single Judge but in our considered opinion, there is no substance in any of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants. That apart, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants waited for about three years before filing the writ application. We do not find any scope to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. However, while dismissing this letters patent appeal, we direct the - 3 - Principal Conservator of Forest, Patna (respondent no. 3) to dispose of the matter, if not already disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The present appellants are permitted to attend before respondent no. 3 either through their counsel or by themselves. (P. K. Misra, CJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.) AMIN