RAM LAL VISHWAKARMA SON OF LATE CHAIT NARYAN VISHWAKARMA, R/O VILLAGE POST LAI, P.S. BIHATA, DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, 3RD SECRETARIAT,SINCHAI BHAWAN, HARDING ROAD, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C to S.C.1 appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the validity and legality of order dated 16.4.2003 (Annexure-19) passed by the Prescribed Authority-cum-Conservator of Forest,Patna Circle, Patna, whereby he has refused to renew licence of the petitioner for running a Saw Mill on the ground that he was found junior most amongst the applicants for such licences. The facts in the present case are not in much controversy. The petitioner was granted licence No 249 of 1996 by the Licensing Authority-cum- Divisional Forest Officer, Patna by order dated 23.2.1996 for running his Saw Mill at Bihta in the district of Patna. It is admitted case of the petitioner that licence issued to him was renewed up to year 2001 and he was running his Saw Mill on the strength of that licence.

(3.) It appears that a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India was filed before the Apex Court at the behest of one T.N. Godavarman Thirumalkpad Vs. Union of India & others , which gave rise to writ petition (Civil) No. 202/1995, wherein the issue regarding preservation of forest was for consideration. In the aforesaid writ petition certain orders and directions were issued by the Apex Court, which were applicable for all the States of the country including our own State of Bihar. In the light of directions issued by the Apex Court, it further appears that, the State Government also took a policy decision to reduce number of Saw Mills and Plywood Mills etc. and it was resolved to reduce the number of Saw Mills to be 1950, 265 Veneer Mills and 109 Plywood Mills for the undivided State of Bihar. In view of reduction of number of Saw Mills, the licenses were required to be issued by the licensing authority under the provisions of Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 and actually, licence was issued to the petitioner in the year 1996. Subsequently, in the light of the directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court and in the light of policy decision of the State Government reducing the number of Saw Mills, quotas were allotted to the different district including the district of Patna. Licences were required to be renewed on the basis of seniority of the applicants as per the guidelines issued by the competent authorities from time to time in this regard. In that back ground, the impugned order dated 16.4.2003 (Annexure-19) appears to have been issued by the respondent no.4 refusing to select the petitioner for renewal of his licence.