IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3954 of 2005 PARMANAND KUMAR @ PARMANAND KUNWAR, son of Sri Jagdish Kumar, resident of village-Pandaul, P.S.-Pandaul, District-Madhubani. ……..Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 19 11.02.2011 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.11.2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani. The prosecution report in the case is that a raid was made on the premises of the petitioner and a ‘SAW’ along with certain other items was seized by the raiding party on 26.5.2000. It is alleged that petitioner was running his mill without a license. The stand of the petitioner, on the other hand which is accepted in the counter filed on behalf of the State, is that the petitioner had filed an application for renewing his license which was rejected in 2004 and the petitioner had not submitted the required tax and had also not deposited the security deposit of rupees two thousand. In reply to which the petitioner has specifically stated that all documents were submitted before the District Forest Officer. The counsel for the petitioner referrers to Section 5 of the Bihar Saw Mill Regulation Act, 1990. The provision to sub Section (b) of Section 5 specifically provides that if an application is submitted by a person within a period of thirty days and thereafter the period during which the application is pending for consideration shall be deemed, as if such a person was granted license under this Act and he was operating the saw mill or saw pit accordingly. The facts disclose that the petitioner had applied for license within the statutory period of 30 days. The license was not granted at the time of the raid, however before submitting the charge sheet or during investigation 2 the authorities ought to have taken into consideration that the petitioner had duly applied for grant of license. It was also important that the authorities concerned should dispose of the application of all such person who had applied for a license for running the saw mill within a reasonable period or else it leads to unnecessary harassment. This Court, therefore, finds that in fact it cannot be specifically alleged that the petitioner was running the saw mill in contravention of the law , in view of the fact that he had applied for the license in the interim period. Accordingly, I quash the order impugned dated 29.11.2001 passed in G.O.No. 84 of 2000 pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani. This application is allowed. PN ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)