← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/8269/2013disposed

Mahendra Thakur And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-02-10Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

Patna High Court CWJC No.8269 of 2013 dt.10-02-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8269 of 2013 ===========================================================

1. Mahendra Thakur Son of Late Nawal Kishore Thakur Resident of Village - Baingra, P.O. Baingra, P.S. Saharghat, District - Madhubani

2. Vijay Kant Thakur Son of Late Baidya Nath Thakur Resident of Village - Sagarpur, P.O. Sagarpur, P.S. Sakari, District - Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar, Patna

4. The Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Muzaffarpur

5. The Conservator of Forest, Muzaffarpur

6. The Divisional Forest Officer, Mithila Forest Division, Darbhanga .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.B.K.Mangalam, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amish Kumar, A.C. to AAG 8 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-02-2017 Heard Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amish Kumar learned A.C. to AAG 8 for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2012 of the respondent N.6 the Divisional Forest Officer, Mithila Forest Division, Bhagalpur whereby the prayer of the petitioner for grant of saw mill licence was rejected inter alia on grounds that the same was incomplete.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and apart from the fact that the order of rejection attributes incompleteness of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.8269 of 2013 dt.10-02-2017 application form submitted by the petitioner as a reason for its rejection, which neither suffers infirmity, nor persuades this Court to interfere therewith, even otherwise, the petitioner having chosen to invoke the writ jurisdiction after a period of two years without giving any explanation for the delay, is not entitled to an indulgence in this extraordinary jurisdiction.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 17.2.2017 Transmission Date NA