IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2863 of 2005 Smt. Phoolpatti Devi, wife of Shri Baidyanath Thakur, resident of Village- Halimpur, P.O. Rajwara, P.S. Sahebganj, Block- Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur (Bihar)… …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Environment and Forest, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna, 3. The Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest, Department of Environment and Forest, Government of Bihar, Patna, 4. The Authorised Officer-cum-Conservator of Forest, Muzaffarpur Circle, Muzaffarpur, 5. The Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Licencing Officer, Tirhut Forest Division, Muzaffarpur, 6. The Collector-cum-Chairman, District Saw Mills Committee, District- Muzaffarpur… …Respondents ……….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate For the State : A.C. to G.A. 9 ............................ 6 20.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner claims to be owner and proprietor of a saw mill in the name and style ‘Phoolpatti Devi Saw Mills’ established at Village- Halimpur, P.O. Rajwara, P.S. Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur under the licence no. 118 of 1995 issued vide memo no. 2106 dated 21.9.1995. 2 It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that vide letter no.241 dated 9.1.2002, his licence for saw mill was cancelled by respondent no.5. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no.4. The appellate authority had remitted back the matter again to respondent no.5 to reconsider the case of the petitioner and take a fresh decision. Thereafter, the petitioner had also filed a petition before original authority and as per the submission of the learned counsel, since the petition could not be disposed of for long period, this writ application has been preferred. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and a stand has been taken therein that, vide Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, respondent no.5 has now passed an order dated 19.07.2011 and has again come to the conclusion that the licence of the petitioner for the saw mill was correctly cancelled. In above view of the matter, since the original authority has already passed the order, this 3 writ application is being disposed of with a liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the same before an appropriate forum. Sanjay-II (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)