IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.4934 of 2010 M/S Sharma Furniture House, Chilhos, P.S. Sandesh, Distt.- Bhojpur A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Smt. Sanju Devi, W/O Sri Ajay Sharma, R/O Vill.- Chilhos, P.S. Sandesh, Distt.- Bhojpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Secretary, Environment & Forest Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Bihar, Patna 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Bhojpur Forest Division, Bhojpur 4. The Forester, Bhojpur Forest Division, Bhojpur -------------------------- 04/ 24.08.2011 Heard Mr. Vinay Mistry, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manager Sah, learned Assisting counsel to S.C. 20 for the State. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents permitting him to reopen and operate his furniture business with the aid of 18” diameter saw mill. It is the contention of the petitioner that although an expert committee constituted by the State Government has permitted the use of 18” diameter Saw Mill for the purpose of furniture business without being required to obtain a licence under the Saw Mill Regulation Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the Forester, respondent no. 4 during his visit to the furniture shop of the petitioner situated at Chilhos, P.S. Sandesh, District-Bhojpur, where the petitioner is running the business of manufacture and sale of furniture orally forced the petitioner to close down the business, inter alia, on grounds of not having a license under the Act. It is not in dispute that upon recommendation by the Expert Committee 2 constituted by the State Government, a petition was filed before the Central Empowered Committee constituted by the Supreme Court under the orders passed in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995, inter alia, seeking approval of exemption of tiny Saw Mills up to 18” diameter from the purview of the Act meaning thereby no licence under the Act, was required for operation of these Saw Mills and the same having been approved by the Central Empowered Committee as also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, yet the respondent no. 4 has caused interference with the business operation of the petitioner in running his furniture manufacturing shop with the help of 18” diameter Saw Mill. Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the certain orders passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12218 of 2008 dated 16.9.2008 and C.W.J.C. No. 6662 of 2009 dated 24.6.2009, submits that the action of the respondent Forester in forcing the closure of the business of the petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction. The writ petition having been filed on 19.3.2010 and having been taken up for consideration on 8.7.2011 and again on 5.8.2011 and despite time being granted to the respondent authorities for filing counter affidavit, yet no counter affidavit has been placed on the record of the proceeding. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and having perused the materials available on record of the proceedings, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to 3 the respondent no. 4 to refrain from causing any interference with the business of the petitioner unless he is satisfied that the petitioner is carrying out his business of manufacture of furniture with the aid of Saw Mill exceeding 18” diameter. The respondent no. 4 would be at liberty to satisfy himself after making enquiry as to the diameter of the Saw Mill being used by the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is indeed carrying out his business with the aid of 18” diameter Saw Mill, the respondent no. 4 should restrain himself from interfering with the business of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)