Birendra Mistri @ Balendra Mistri v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13259 of 2022 ====================================================== Birendra Mistri @ Balendra Mistri Son of Ram Briksh Mistri, Resident of village - Fatua Chak, P.S. - Gurua, District - Gaya (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Chairman of State Level Committee for Wood-based Industries, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Licensing Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Forest Division, Gaya.

4.

The Ranger, Sherghati, Gaya.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vinay Mistry, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sarvesh Kr. Singh (Aag13) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 10-02-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The present application has been preferred for the following relief(s):

(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the seizure list in Forest Case No. 110 of 2022 dated 07.08.2022 (Annexure-1) made by the Ranger, Sherghati, Gaya whereby the saw mill along with 45 Kg Kunni has been seized within the saw mill premises of the petitioner in violation of Section 5 & 14 of the (Bihar Saw Mills Regulation) Act, 1990.

(ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the

Patna High Court CWJC No.13259 of 2022(3) dt.10-02-2025 2/2 respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner on account of damage the boundary wall of the saw mill premises by JCB and on account of forcibly taken one piece double plung and sofa set from the premises of the petitioner.

(iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents authorities to release the seized materials in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. On 12.09.2024, two weeks' time was granted to remove the defect.

4. As the same was not removed and it being a peremptory order, the case stands dismissed on 26.09.2024.

5. Perused the file, consigned.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U