IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.451 of 2023 ====================================================== M/s Bikram Timber Bailey Road, P.S. - Rupaspur, District- Patna a partnership firm through its Partner Ram Nath Sharma, aged about 73 years (Male), Son of Late Mewa Mistri, Resident of Village- Gorakhari, P.S. - Bikram, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chairman of the State Level Committee for Wood Based Industries, Bihar-cum-Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar. 3. The Conservator of Forest-Cum-Appellate Authority, Haryali Mission, South Bihar, Patna. 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Patna Forest Division, Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Mistry, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kr. Singh, AAG-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 25-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs : “(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the Order No. 6 dated 30.11.2022 bearing Memo No. 262 dated 30.11.2022( Annexure-4) passed by the Conservator of Forest-cum-Appellate Authority, Haryali Mission, South Bihar in Appeal Case No. 1 of 2015 whereby the appeal has been dismissed which was filed against the Order No. 152 Patna High Court CWJC No.451 of 2023 dt.25-03-2025 2/5 dated 23.12.2014 (Annexure-3) passed by the Licensing Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Patna, Forest Division, Patna whereby the operation of saw mill has been stopped with immediate effect till the license is renewed as the aforesaid orders are not at all sustainable in the facts and circumstances of this case. (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 4 to accept the application for renewal for the year 2022 to 2026 and to renew the license of the petitioner under Rule 6 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1993 in terms of the decision of the State Level Committee for Wood- Based Industries, Bihar dated 20.09.2019 in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities not to interfere the operation of saw mill of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) For issuance of such other writ(s), order(s), direction(s) as your Lordship may deem fit and proper.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted license bearing License No. 21 of 1994 for running the Saw Mill. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Saw Mill of the petitioner was situated over the land appertaining to Khata No. 910/100, Plot No. 338, Tauzi No. Patna High Court CWJC No.451 of 2023 dt.25-03-2025 3/5 18 in Patna District. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has taken the aforesaid land from the land owner Sri. Binod Singh on monthly rent and thereafter the petitioner has filed a Title Suit No. 582 of 2010 before the Sub Judge-II, Patna against the landlord and the same is pending for disposal before the learned Sub-Judge-II, Patna. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, the order dated 23.12.2014 was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Patna, Forest Division, Patna (Respondent No. 4) and petitioner has challenged the same in the Appeal which was filed under Section 12 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 and the authority concerned after hearing the parties has been pleased to dismiss the Appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 30.11.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order passed by the authority concerned without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the State has drew the attention of the order dated 30.11.2022, in the last paragraph of first page which reflects as :- ^^vuqKfIr dh vksj ls Jh fou; feL=h] vf/koDrk lquokbZ esa mifLFkr gksdj viuk i{k j[kk gSA vuds }kjk fyf[kr i{k Hkh lefiZr fd;k x;k gSA vuqKkiu inkf/kdkjh lg ou ize.My inkf/kdkjh] iVuk ou ize.My ds }kjk Hkh fyf[kr i{k lefiZr fd;k Patna High Court CWJC No.451 of 2023 dt.25-03-2025 4/5 x;k gSA buls Li’V gksrk gS fd fcgkj dk’B fpjku ¼fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e] 1990 ds rgr vuqKfir la[;k 21@1994 jke ukFk “kekZ ,oa vkse izdk”k “kekZ ds uke ls tkjh dh xbZ gSA ;g vkjk fey [kkrk la[;k&910@100 IyksV la[;k&388 rksth la[;k&18 Fkkuk la[;k&5281 ij LFkkfir dh xbZ ftl Hkwfe ds ekfyd fouksn flag gSA muds }kjk ;g Hkwfe vkjk fey ds LFkkiuk gsrq jke ukFk “kekZ ,oa vkse izdk”k “kekZ dks fdjk;kukek ij nh xbZ FkhA fdjk;kukek dh vof/k ds lekfIr mijkUr Hkwfe fdjk;k ij nsus ls fouksn flag }kjk bUdkj djus ij muds fo:) Sub Judge – IT, Patna ds U;k;ky; esa Title suit No 582/2010 nk;j fd;k x;k gSA Jh fou; feL=h] vf/koDrk ds }kjk ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk CWJC No 7898/2012 esa fnukad & 14-08-2013 dks ikfjr vkns”k ds vkyksd esa ekW fd;k fd Title suit ds Pendency dh vof/k esa vuqKfIr dk uohudj.k fd;k tk,A muds }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd vuqKkiu inkf/kdkjh }kjk vkns”k ikfjr djus ls iwoZ lquokbZ dk ekSdk ugha iznku fd;k x;k FkkA ^^ 5. Learned counsel for the State has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner has failed to renew the lease agreement for the Saw Mill and the licensee was informed regarding this vide order dated 19.07.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner has requested to submit the lease agreement for the land in question. The petitioner has failed to produce the same Patna High Court CWJC No.451 of 2023 dt.25-03-2025 5/5 before the authority concerned and thereafter the authority vide order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure-4) had asked the petitioner to stop the operation of the Saw Mill. 6. Having heard the counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record, it transpired that earlier the petitioner has been granted license of Saw Mill on the ground that the petitioner had produced the rent agreement for the land in question and thereafter the land in question has been sub-judiced before the competent court of law and the petitioner has not produced the lease/rent agreement in favour of the petitioner, so the authority has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner as claimed in the writ petition. 7. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Ibrar//- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 26.03.2025 Transmission Date N.A.