Patna High CourtCWJC/10427/2014dismissed

M/S Hari Gopal Saw Mill v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-02-18Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10427 of 2014 ====================================================== M/s Hari Gopal Saw Mill, through its partner Pankaj Kumar Saha Son of Late Kameshwar Prasad Sah Resident of Village- Govindpur, P.O. Sonkola, Police Station - Aabadpur, District - Katihar. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Forest & Environment, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Forest & Environment, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Secretary, Forest & Environment, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Patna.

5. The Conservator of Forest, Purnea Circle, Purnea.

6. The Divisional Forest Officer, Purnea Circle, Purnia. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh Mr. Ranvijay Narain Singh For the Respondent/s : AC to SC 25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 7.

18-02-2016 Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Ranvijay Narain Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to Standing Counsel - 25. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash Annexure - 5 to the writ petition i.e. a notice issued by the Licensing Authority-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Purnea Forest Division, Purnea, whereby the petitioner was noticed to appear, who was the licensee of the saw mill, with relevant documents regarding the titleship of saw mil. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade

Patna High Court CWJC No.10427 of 2014 (7) dt.18-02-2016 2/2 the Court that the said notice is unauthorized, in view of Annexure - 6 to the writ petition. However, the Court is of the opinion that since only he has been asked to appear and explain, that too issued by the licensing authority, the notice may not be interfered with.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U