IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7668 of 2002 M/S HAJRAT SAW MILL Versus THE CHIEF FOREST OFFICER & ORS ----------- 4. 20.4.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. In this writ application which is the second attempt of the petitioner for getting a licence he has assailed the correctness of the order of the licensing authority dated 22.4.2002, as contained in Annexure 8. The said order has been passed pursuant to an earlier direction of this Court dated 27.2.2002 in a batch of writ petition including one filed by the petitioner being C.W.J.C.No. 13604/2000, wherein this Court in the operative portion had only indicated as follows: “All these petitions are disposed of with the direction to the concerned authorities to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the direction given by the Division Bench in L.P.A.No. 1458 of 2000 and the observations made by the Supreme Court in the matter of Jawahar Lal Sharma (supra). The petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. The authorities shall decide the 2 matter within 15 days from the date of production/ submission of a copy of this order. The petitioners shall be free to make application to the concerned Divisional Forest Officer/ licensing authority to permit such petitioners to remove their goods in case the concerned Divisional Forest Officer is not granting or renewing the licenses. A copy of this order be kept in the records of connection petitions.” The impugned order in fact has been passed after taking into account the order of the Supreme Court and the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in L.P.A.No. 1458/2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in his block (Harsidhi) there is no saw mill. He would also refer to a letter dated 9th September, 1998 of the Chief Inspector of Factories as with regard to grant of licence under the Factories Act. In the opinion of this Court the petitioner is mixing up two types of licenses, one under the Factory Act and the other under the Bihar Kast Chiran Viniyaman Adhiniam 1990 hereinafter referred to as the 3 Saw Mill Act. The main concern of the petitioner is to get his saw mill operational for which he was required a licence under the aforesaid Saw Mill Act. The evidence of his factory being in existence in the year 1998 was to be taken into account by the authorities of the Forest Department for granting a licence in terms of Bihar Kast Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniam, 1990. The grant of such licence of saw mill in fact has not been only restricted in the order of the Apex Court but even otherwise this aspect as to whether the authorities were required to consider the case of the petitioner separately on account of there being no saw mill in his block (Harsidhi) could have been effectively gone into in appeal before the District Judge, a forum which has been provided under the order of the Apex Court against an order of the licensing authority refusing licence on any ground whatsoever. Since this writ petition has remained pending for a period of almost seven years, remitting the matter in appeal, therefore, would be of no consequence. 4 In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the licensing authority to reconsider the grievance of the petitioner afresh in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and consequential latest policy decision on the subject framed by the Government of Bihar with regard to grant of licence to the saw mill within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If the petitioner qualifies for such grant of saw mill the licence may be issued or in alternative reasons must be set out for refusal of such licence. In order to expedite the matter, the petitioner may file a representation with all evidence and the period of six months shall be reckoned from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner by the licensing authority. This application, accordingly, stands disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/