Patna High Court
M/S Bikram Timber vs The State Of Bihar on 25 March, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
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
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
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.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 26.03.2025
Transmission Date N.A.
