Jharkhand High Court
L.B.R. Industries, Bihar Timber, Itki ... vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 9 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2003(4)JCR212(JHR)]
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In his batch of writ, petitions the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs.
(a) For quashing the letter No. 243 dated 28.10.2000 as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition, issued by the Secretary Government of erstwhile State of Bihar to the Principle Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar, Ranchi whereby he has directed that all saw mills, veneer mills, plywood mills and other timber based industries should not be allowed to function within 5 km from the notified forest area and the licensee saw mills should be directed to move 5 km away from the Notified forest area.
(b) For quashing letter No. 745, dated 7.3.01 as contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition, issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranchi to the petitioner mentioning that the saw mill of the petitioner is to be closed because it is situated within 5 km. of the notified forest area and directing the petitioner to stop receipt of forest produce in its saw mill.
(c) For quashing letter No. 1802 dated 16.5.01 as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand, Ranchi directing all the subordinate authorities to direct all the saw mills to move 5 km away from the notified forest area within two years and thereafter process for closing down the saw mill be initiated.
(d) For quashing letter No. 2707 dated 1.9.01 as contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition issued by the Dlvisiqnal Forest Officer, Ranchi Forest Division to the petitioners mentioning that it has been decided to close down the, saw mill of the petitioners within two years on the basis of letter No. 343, dated 28.10.01.
(e) For a direction upon the Divisional Forest Officer to extend the validity of petitioner's saw mill licence.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners as pleaded in their writ petitions are as under.
3. The case of the petitioner in WPC No. 2122 of 2003 is that the petitioner firm is carrying on business of saw mill which was established in the year 1985. The said saw mill is situated over plot No. 1434-A at Arrah Gate, Village-Mahilong, Ranchi. The petitioner firm is registered under the Bihar Finance Act and was granted license under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 and the Factories Act, 1948. It is stated that after the coming into force of the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990 the petitioner obtained a license under the said Act. The said license was being renewed time to time for one calendar year at a time. The petitioner applied before the competent authority for renewal of its license No. 53/ 03 for the calendar year 2003 but respondent No. 5 the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranchi has renewed the license only for a period of five months from 1.1.03 to 15.5.03 without assigning any reason whatsoever and without giving any show cause notice. It is contended that the forest authorities of the State of Jharkhand on misconstruction of the orders dated 12.12.1996 and 4.3.1997 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Govardhan, 1997 SC 1228 and 1223, issued the impugned letters directing the petitioner to close down the saw mill and further stopped renewing the license of the petitioner.
4. The case of the petitioner in WPC No. 2123 of 2003 is that the petitioner firm is doing the business of saw mill established in the year 1988 which is situated in Kantatoli Road, P.S. Lower Bazar, Distt. Ranchi. The petitioner is also registered under the Bihar Finance Act and license was granted under the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950 and Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961. The petitioner is also registered under the "Bihar Rules for the establishment of saw pits" and was also granted license under the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990. The petitioners further case is that the saw mill of the petitioner is in existence since 1985 and the license was time to time renewed by the respondents but the last renewal of the license was for a lesser period of one year i.e. 1.1.2003 to 15.5.2003. Thereafter the impugned letters were issued by the respondent authorities on the misconstruction and misinterpreting the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case referred hereinabove.
5. In WPC No. 2124 of 2003 the petitioners case is that its saw mill is situated at Itki P.S. Itki Distt. Ranchi and the petitioner was also granted license under the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990 which was time to time renewed but the last renewal having been done for a period of less than one year i.e. 1.1.2003 to 15.5.2003. Thereafter the impugned letters have been issued directing the petitioner to close down the saw mill.
6. In WPG No. 2125 of .2003 the petitioners established the saw mill in village Karra Distt. Karra, Ranchi and the petitioner was granted license under the Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990 which was time to time renewed and the last renewal was done in the year 2000 being license No. 45 of 2000. It is stated that thereafter the petitioner applied for renewal of license but the respondents sat tight over the matter and has not disposed, of the application for the grant of license. Instead the impugned letter was issued directing the petitioner to close the saw mill.
7. In WPC No. 2126 of 2003 the petitioners saw mill is situated in BIT. More, P.O. Neori, Distt., Ranchi which was established in the year 1984 and said to have been situated within Ranchi Municipal Corporation which has granted license being license No. 50/2001-02. The petitioner was also granted a license under the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990 and the same was renewed time to time and the last renewal was granted in 2000 being license No. 50/2000. Thereafter the petitioner applied for renewal of license in 2001-02 and 2003 by separate applications but no order was passed by the respondents authorities on the said application instead the respondent on the basis of the impugned letters directed the petitioner to close down the saw mill.
8. The respondents case in the counter-affidavit is that the erstwhile State of Bihar in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court in the above referred case constituted an expert committee to review all the points so directed by the Supreme Court and after considering the report of the expert committee the Government of Bihar, Forest and Environment Dept., Patria issued the order as contained in the letter dated 28.10.2000 to implement the directives of the Supreme Court and on the basis of the expert committee the licensee saw mill situated within 5 km. radius of the notified forest area were directed to shift their saw mill to another place which is not within 5 km radius of the forest notified area. It is stated that according to the direction of the Government the letter dated 1.9.2001 was issued to the petitioners for shifting their saw mill within any notified areas of Municipal Corporation or any other area which does not fall within 5 km. radius of the notified forest. After the creation of State of Jharkhand the Government also constituted a new expert committee to review the implementation of previous direction issued by the Government of Bihar. The newly constituted expert committee also submitted report recommending the implementation of the direction of the Government of Bihar. Accordingly the petitioners were directed to shift their saw mill from the existing place. The respondents further case is that after the expiry of period of license of these petitioners the license automatically revoked and the petitioner saw mill now come under the category of "unlicensed saw mill" which should be closed immediately as per the order of the Supreme Court.
9. Mr. Binod Poddar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the impugned letters as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that neither the impugned letter No. 343 dated 28.10.2000 nor any decision of the erstwhile Government of Bihar has been notified anywhere including the official gazette which is mandatory requirement of law if any area is declared as forest area. The impugned letter and the so called decisions of the Government of Bihar prohibiting to carry on business within 5 km. from the notified area without assigning any reasons is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid decision taken by the erstwhile Government of Bihar vide letter dated 28.10.2000 on the basis, of the expert committee report has not been finally approved by the Supreme Court and the Government is waiting for the appropriate order to be passed by the Supreme Court on the report of the expert committee. Learned counsel submitted that the report of the expert committee constituted by the erstwhile State of Bihar is related to the entire area of erstwhile State of Bihar and therefore, after creation of the, State of Jharkhand the said report lost its relevance so far the area of the newly created State of Jharkhand is concerned and cannot be acted upon particularly when by notification dated 27.7.2001 the State of Jharkhand constituted a fresh expert committee with a direction to submit its report on the points mentioned in the year 12.12.1996 passed by the Supreme Court in T.N. Gobardhan case. Learned counsel submitted that the State of Jharkhand are misconstruing and misinterpreting the order dated 12.12.1996 and 4.3.1997 passed by the Supreme Court in the case referred to hereinabove in as much as the Supreme Court has not directed the State Government to direct the saw mill to move 5 km. away from the notified forest area or close down all saw mills or stop grant or renewal of license for the saw mills which are situated outside the forest area. According to the learned counsel the direction of the Supreme Court is to close down all unlicensed saw mills related to the State of Maharashtra and State of Uttar Pradesh and there is no such direction so far erstwhile State of Bihar including the newly created State of Jharkhand is concerned. Consequently the impugned letters dated 16.5.2001 and 1,9.2001 issued by the State of Jharkhand also not sustainable. Learned counsel then submitted that under Rule 6(4) of the Bihar Saw Mill Regulation Rules (in short the Rules) the renewal of license can be granted for a minimum period of one year but contrary to the said Rule the Divisional Forest Officer illegally and arbitrarily renewed the license for the period lesser than one year without assigning any reasons whatsoever and without giving any show cause notice to the petitioners as to why license be not renewed for the lesser period. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the impugned orders contained in the letters and the action of the respondents are violative of Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g) and Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel put heavy reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Jawahar Lal Sharma and Anr. v. Divisional Forest Officer and Anr., (2002) 3 SCC 42, and the decisions of this Court in the case of Singh Saw Mill v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2003) 1 JLJR 137, in the case of Narayan Saw Mill v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2002) 3 JLJR 306, in the case of Anand Timber v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2002) 3 JLJR 340, and in the case of Rajeev Ranjan Sinha v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1999) 3 PLJR 955.
10. Learned Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that in terms of the direction of the Supreme Court in T.N. Gobardhan case expert committee was constituted to review the sustainable capacity of forest, to allow operation of saw mills and reduce their numbers. The expert committee after careful consideration of the report issued the impugned letters dated 28.10.2000 directing the licensing officers to close down the operation of saw mills which are situated within 5 km radius of notified forest. To implement this restrictions the licensee saw mills already situated within 5 km radius of notified forest were decided to be shifted to another place. It is contended that the impugned letters were issued as per the direction of the Supreme Court. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that after the creation of State of Jharkhand a new expert committee was constituted to review the implementation of previous directions issued by the Government of Bihar and the expert committee strongly recommended the implementation of the direction issued by the Government of Bihar Forest and Environment Department, Patna, Learned counsel drawn my attention to the relevant paragraph of the Supreme Court decision in T.N. Gobardhan case and submitted that it was the directive of the Supreme Court not to permit any unlicensed saw mill. Veneer ply wood industries to operate and they should close their industries forthwith. Learned counsel submitted that all actions have been taken by the respondents by issuing the impugned letters in order to comply the mandatory direction of the Supreme Court. The impugned decisions contained in the letters issued by the respondents including the Department of Forest, Government of Bihar cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or unjustified.
11. Learned Government Advocate relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in T.N. Gobardhan case and also in the case of Jawahar Lal Sharma and Anr. v. Divisional Forest Officer and Anr., (2002) 3 SCC 42, and the decision of this Court of in the case of Narayan Saw Mill v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2002) 3 JLJR 306, and also decision of Orissa High Court in the case of Bhagawan Bhoi v. State of Orissa, AIR 2002 Orl 201.
12. Before appreciating the rival contention of the learned counsels, I would like to discuss the ratio decided by the Supreme Court* and different High Courts on the decision relied upon the parties.
13. In the case of T.N. Gobardhan Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228, the Supreme, Court while considering the scope of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 noticed deforestation resulting in ecological imbalance. While considering the matter their Lordships issued interim directions. While issuing general direction their lordships held that in accordance with Section 2 of the said Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State through out the country without prior approval of the Central Government must cease forthwith. Running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or ply-wood mills and mining of any minerals are no forest purposes and are therefore not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government. Further, felling of trees in all forests shall remain suspended except with the working plans of the State Government as approved by the Central Government, Their Lordships further directed that there shall be complete ban on the movement of cut of trees and timber from any of the seven North-Eastern States to any other State of the country either by rail, road or water ways. Each State will constitute an expert committee to identify the areas which are forest irrespective of whether they are identified, recognized or classified under any law, identified areas which are earlier forest but stand degraded or cleared and identify areas covers by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to the private persons. Further directions were issued for the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.
14. Their Lordships further modified and clarified the earlier order dated 12.12.1996 by passing a modified order dated 4.3.1997, as regards saw mills and other connected industries their Lordships observed ;
"All unlicensed saw mills, veneer and ply-wood industries in the State of Maharashtra and the State of Uttar Pradesh are to be closed forthwith and the State Government would not remove or relax the condition for grant of permission licence for the opening of any such saw mill, veneer and ply-wood industry and it shall also not grant any fresh permission/licence for this purpose. The Chief Secretary of this State will ensure strict compliance report within two weeks."
15. In the case of Jawahar Lal Sharma v. Divisional Forest Officer, U.P. and Anr., (2002) 3 SCC 42, the facts of the case was that petitioner purchased saw mill from one Gauri Ram in 1985, Gauri Ram was holding a licence for establishing and operating of the saw mill since 1981. The licence was sought to be transferred in the name of the petitioner by the Divisional Forest Officer Gazipur. Thereafter, year by year, fees for renewal of licence has been deposited and applications moved in that regard. The controversy arose for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 when the prayer for renewal was refused. Petitioner approached the High Court of Allahabad by filing writ petition. By order dated 14.11.2000 a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition by simply observing that appellants were at liberty to move a fresh application for grant of licence. In appeal filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court their Lordships while allowing the appeal observed :
"It is not necessary for us to go into noticing further details of facts in view of the direction which we propose to make. It appears that a larger issue dealing with ecology, projection and conservation of forests in T.N. Gobardhan Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, is pending in this Court, wherein from time to time directions are being issued. Two such directions dated 12.12.1996 and 4.3.1997 are to be found reported as (1997) 2 SCC 267 and (1997) 3 SCC 312. On account of the Supreme Court of India being seized of the matter and monitoring the issue there has been reluctance on the part of the government officials to deal with saw mill licences and their renewals. In the cases before, us, the renewal fees have been deposited by the appellants but orders of renewal are not passed. A vague plea is raised on behalf of the respondents that the applications for renewal were not in prescribed proforma. If that be so the defect could have been pointed out tp the applicant concerned and, an appropriate application in the prescribed proforma could have been called for to be substituted in place of defective application if any or such other particulars as may be necessary could have been called for. The relevant consideration for, and the rights and obligations flowing from a prayer for renewal of a pre-existing licence are different rather substantially at variance from those for an application for the grant of a fresh licence. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that an application for the grant of a fresh licence may not be enter-tainable at all though the appellants may be entitled to renewal subject to such directions, as the Supreme Court of India may be pleased to make. The orders made by the High Court do not therefore, meet the ends of justice. Admittedly, the licence of any of the appellants has not been cancelled."
16. In the case of Rajeev Ranjan Sinha v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1999) 3 PLJR 955, the petitioner moved the Patna High Court challenging the order rejecting his application for grant of licence for establishing saw mill in the district of Aurangabad on the ground that un-disputedly village Obra where the petitioner sought to establish saw mill is a forest or forest land within the meaning of the Forest Conservation Act. Allowing the said application learned Judge held as under :
"The other direction concerning saw mills is to be found in the order dated 4.3.1997 passed by the Supreme Court in the same case. In paragraph 4 of that order (reported in AIR 1997 SC 1233) it is stated as follows :
"4. All unlicenced saw mills, veneer and ply-wood industries in the State of Maharashtra and the State of Uttar Pradesh are to be closed forthwith and the State Government would not remove or relax the condition for grant of permission/licence for the opening of any such saw mill, veneer and ply wood industry and it shall also not grant any fresh permission/licence for this purpose. The Chief Secretary of this State will ensure strict compliance report within two weeks."
From the above it is evident that the direction to close down all unlicensed saw mills related to the State of Maharashtra and the State of U.P. and there was no such direction so far as this State is concerned.
No other direction of the Supreme Court was brought to my notice to justify the direction issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in his aforementioned circular letter.
I am, therefore, clearly of the view that the direction of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest not to issue any fresh licence for saw mill in this State was quite unjustified and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. In so far as this State is concerned prior permission of the Central Government would be required for establishing a Saw Mill within a forest or within a forest area. But a saw mill outside a forest or forest area will not attract this restriction and it would not be covered by the direction of the Supreme Court relied upon by the A.A.G. III."
17. In the case of Anand Timber v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2002) 3 JLJR 340, the petitioner's case was that in 1996 he had applied for grant of licence for saw mill and after due inquiry that the saw mill situated outside the forest area a licence was granted in 1997 which was time to time renewed. All of a sudden in 2001 the authority refused to renew the licence on the ground of ban imposed by the Supreme Court for grant of fresh saw mill licence. It was contended by the respondents that State of Bihar took a policy decision not to grant licence for saw mills in the District of Deoghar and it was further decided to reduce the number of saw mills in the District of Deoghar in the light of the Supreme Court decision. Allowing the writ application a Bench of this Court held as under :
"From the orders of the Supreme Court quoted hereinabove it is clear that the Supreme Court has not issued direction to close down all saw mills and to stop grant of renewal of licence for such saw mills which are situated outside the forest area. The direction of the Supreme Court is to close down all unlicensed saw mills related to the State of Maharashtra and the State of Uttar Pradesh and there was no such direction so far State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) is concerned. As noticed above it is not the case of the respondents that, since the saw mill of the petitioner is situated within the forest area, therefore, licence could not be renewed. The authority refused to renew the licence only because of order dated 12.12.1996 passed by the Supreme Court."
18. In the case of Narayan Saw Mill v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2002) 3 JLJR 306, the question that arose for consideration before the Division Bench was whether proviso to Section 5 of the Bihar Saw Mills Regulation Act, 1990 is liable to struck down as being invalid piece of legislation and against the public policy. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in T.N. Gobardhan, case (supra) this Court held as under :
"In the light of the settled proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court, I am of the view that there is repugnancy in the proviso to Section 5 of the Bihar Saw Mills Regulation Act, 1990 and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The proviso to Section 5 of the said Act entitles a person to establish and operate a saw mill which is an activity for non-forest purposes even without having a valid licence after expiry of 30 days from the date of making such application for the grant of licence. The establishment of saw mill and operating it by sawing trees as a deemed licensee under the aforesaid proviso amounts to giving licence to a person to use the forest for non-forest purposes without complying the requirements if law. In my opinion proviso to main section it shall be a valid piece of legislation. The main part of this Section 5 regarding grant of license is separate from the proviso and if the proviso to Section 5 is expunged or struck down then the main section can be enforced with fill force. Prima facie I am of the opinion that the proviso to Section 5 regarding deemed licensee is totally in conflict with the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act and, therefore, to that extent i.e. proviso to Section 5 regarding deemed licensee is liable to be struck down as void."
Besides above the proviso to Section 5 of the Regulation Act, 1990 in my considered opinion is against the public policy. If the proviso to Section 5 is allowed to stand it would give much scope to the mischievous to use the forest land for non-forest purposes by carrying on sawing activities of forest products immediately by filing an application for grant of licence awaiting expiry of thirty days instead of deemed permission to operate saw mill to use forest land for non-forest purposes in the garb of an application for the grant of licence. Proviso to Section 5, in my opinion, is also against the public policy which is liable to be struck down.
19. In the case of Singh Saw Mill v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2003) 1 JLJR 137, the writ petitioner challenged the order passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Deoghar by which application for grant of licence was refused. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was running saw mill illegally without any licence rather on the basis of deemed licence and on inquiry it was found that petitioner violated the provisions of India Forest Act and further that the State Government vide letter No. 343, dated 28.10.2000 had instructed the Divisional Forest Officer to close down all illegal saw mills and reduce the saw mill in the district of Deoghar. It was contended by the respondents that decision was taken to reduce the number of saw mills in the district of deoghar. A Bench of this Court while disposing of, the writ petition directing the respondents to reconsider the application observed :
"Thus, from a bare perusal of the observation of the Supreme Court, it is apparent that there is no ban on renewal of licences and the respondents, while passing the impugned order appears to have not properly appreciated this aspect of the matter, Therefore, so far as the refusal to grant the licence on the ghazls of the order of the Supreme Court is concerned, the same needs reconsideration on the basis of reasonings which would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the petitioner had no licence at all. He had applied for one and therefore what was the basis for restricting the saw mills to a limited number is not well explained save and except a vague plea that the Committee decided to do so. Moreover, and as has already been noticed earlier, the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in relation to Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh only."
20. Coming back to the instant case, as noticed above, the impugned letters which are the subject matter of these writ petitions are Annexures 6, 7 and 8. Annexure 6 is the letter dated 28.10.2000 issued by the Secretary, Government of erstwhile State of Bihar to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests whereby he has directed that all saw mills, veneer mills, plywood mills and other timber based industries should not be allowed to function within 5 kms. from the notified forest area. The aforesaid letter was issued by the Secretary on the basis of the report of the Expert Committee constituted by the erstwhile State of Bihar. In the said report, the Committee has recommended to the Government of taking steps in the matter of reducing the number of saw mills and also to take steps for directing saw mills owners to remove their saw mills beyond 5 kms. of the forest area. Clause 1/1 of the said letter (Annexure 6) however, clarified that such saw mills which were established prior to 12.12,1996 shall not be disturbed even if those saw mills situates within the municipal corporation, municipality and notified area.
21. It has not been disputed by the respondents that after creation of State of Jharkhand a fresh Expert Committee was constituted by notification dated 27.7.2001. The said Committee submitted its report on the points mentioned in the order dated 12.12.1996 passed by the Supreme Court in T.N. Gobardhan, case (supra). However, no decision has yet been taken by the State of Jharkhand on the said report.
22. Similarly, by letter-dated 7.3.2001 (Annexure 7), Divisional Forest Officer directed the petitioners to close down their saw mills as the saw mills falls within 5 kms from the forest area. The said letter dated 28.10.2000 has been issued in compliance of the direction given in T.N. Gobardhan, case. The aforesaid letter appears to have been issued without application of mind and without issuing show cause and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. As noticed above, the direction issued by the Supreme Court In T.N. Gobardhan, case has been interpreted by the Division Bench and single Bench of this Court and it has been held that direction of the Supreme Court is to close down all unlicenced saw mill, veneer mills, ply-wood mills of Maharashtra and in the State of Uttar Pradesh. No further direction of the Supreme Court has been brought to the notice of this Court for closing down the licenced saw mills established before 1995 even if those saw mills and other Industries situates within the notified area of the district.
23. The saw mills of the petitioners were established in between 1983 and 1990 and since then their licences have been renewed every year. Learned Government Advocate has hot disputed that in the report of the expert committee it has not been recommended to close down all saw mills established prior to 12.12.1996. It has not been disputed that Government of Jharkhand has not yet taken final decision and framed any guidelines by issuing notification with regard to the procedure that shall be adopted for reducing the number of saw mills situated particularly within the forest area. The State of Jharkhand as appears to have not correctly interpreting the direction issued by the Supreme Court in T.N. Gobardhan, case (supra). The stand of the respondents is that after the expiry of the period of licence of their saw mills they became unlicenced saw mills and therefore direction of the Supreme Court to close down all unlicenced saw mills forthwith will apply. In my considered opinion interpretation given by the Government is wholly misconceived. As a matter of fact the Supreme Court directed to close all saw mills, veneer mills, ply-wood industries, which are running without any licence and further not to grant permission for opening of any new saw mill, veneer mill, ply-wood industry without prior permission of the competent authority. In the entire counter-affidavit the respondents have taken a stand that all unlicenced saw mills are bound to be closed pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court. There is no dispute that no unlicenced saw mill shall be allowed to carry on business of saw mills, veneer mills, ply-wood industry irrespective of place and time when such saw mills, veneer mills, ply-wood industries were established.
24. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in may considered opinion the impugned order and direction issued by the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand are not applicable in the saw mills of the petitioners. The impugned letter dated 7.3.2001 (Annexure 7) issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranchi directing the petitioners to close down their saw mills and the letter dated 1.9.2001 (Annexure 9) directing the petitioners to shift their saw mills are liable to be quashed.
25. So far, Writ No. 2125/2003 is concerned Mr. Binod Poddar, learned counsel very fairly submitted that the licence of this petitioner has been finally cancelled.
Petitioner of this case therefore may challenge the said order by preferring statutory appeal and this judgment will not apply in the case of petitioner of WPC No. 2125/ 2003.
26. Other writ petitions i.e. WPC No. 2122/2003, 2123/2003, 2124/2003 and 2126/2003 are allowed and the impugned letters as contained in Annexure-7 and 9 are quashed : WPC No. 2125/2003 is accordingly dismissed.