Gayatri Devi, v. The State Of Bihar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8321 of 2026 ====================================================== Gayatri Devi, W/o Late Shankar Prasad Verma @ Shankar Prasad Verma, Proprietor of M/s Shiv Shankar Saw Mill, Resident of Village- Garhpura, P.S. Garhpura, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of Bihar, Sichai Bhawan, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2.
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HoFF), Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of Bihar, Fourth Floor, Aranya Bhawan, Pir Ali Marg, Patna-800014. 3.
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Dev), Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of Bihar, Third Floor, Aranya Bhawan, Pir Ali Marg, Patna-800014. 4.
The D.F.O. Begusarai Forest Division, Begusarai. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Government Pleader 25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 02-07-2026 Heard Mr. Vijay Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s):
"(i) to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, setting aside Letter No. 1831 dated 03.10.2025 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Begusarai, whereby and whereunder the Petitioner has been directed to shift his threedecade-old saw mill unit situated at Cheriya Bariyarpur outside a 10 km radius of Kanwar Jheel Eco-Sensitive Zone within a stipulated
2/4 period, failing which coercive action, including cancellation of license, has been threatened. (ii) to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, setting aside Letter No. 808 dated 06.04.2026 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Begusarai, whereby and whereunder the Petitioner has been directed to submit an application in prescribed Form 'G' for relocation of the unit along with requisite documents within 30 days, failing which proceedings for cancellation of the Petitioner's Saw Mill License No. 93/1999 shall be initiated.
(iii) to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the Respondents not to take any coercive steps, including cancellation of the Petitioner's Saw Mill Licence No. 93/1999 or closure of the unit, without granting reasonable and adequate time for compliance in accordance with law.
(iv) to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner, being a preexisting licensed unit operating since 1998-99, in
3/4 a fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary manner, and to provide a reasonable transition period for relocation, if so required.
(v) to pass such other order/orders or direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready to shift his Saw Mill from the eco-sensitive zone as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court/Central Government Directives/State Government Directives but not being economically sound, some time be given.
4. The submission is that it will suffice if his reply is considered sympathetically by the Divisional Forest Officer, Begusarai Forest Division, Begusarai, pursuant to the letter no. 808 dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure P/4 to the writ petition).
5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submit that already he was granted time repeatedly and now the notice also shows that he has to do the needful. However, he failed to act in time.
6. Having heard the parties, this Court is of the opinion that though the petitioner has deliberately delayed the process of shifting, considering that he is there for long, is ready
4/4 to shift as per the directives, he be allowed to answer to the letter no. 808 dated 06.04.2026 and if he comes up with a positive proposal where to be shifted, an appropriate order shall be passed.
7. This order is being passed in the backdrop of the fact that it has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the letter dated 06.04.2026, no further steps has been taken.
8. Considering the fact that already delay has happened, allowing the petitioner to approach in next two weeks by filing a proper reply, an appropriate order be passed within a period of two months thereafter.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
10. This Court would like to put on records its word of appreciation for Mr. Vijay Anand, learned counsel representing the petitioner for the proper assistance rendered in the matter. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U