M/S Brajendra Saw Mill, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17764 of 2023 ====================================================== M/s Brajendra Saw Mill, Sirauli-II, Ramnagara, P.S.-Riga, District-Sitamarhi a Proprietorship firm through its Proprietor Gajendra Thakur, aged about 57 Years-Male, Son of Late Bilas Thakur, Resident of Village-Ramnagara, P.S.- Roga, District-Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secreary, Department of Environment and Forest, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Chairman, State Level Committee for Wood-Based Industries, Bihar. 3.

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Licensing Officer-Cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Sitamarhi Forest Division, Sitamarhi.

5.

Brajendra Prasad Son of Late Ram Narayan Sah Resident of VillageMajaulia, P.S.-Bela, District-Sitamarhi. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vinay Mistry For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. V.R.P. Singh, Adv. For the State :

Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad ( GP 14 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 12-09-2024 Heard Mr. Vinay Mistry, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, learned G.P. 14 as also respondent No. 5 who had allegedly given the power of attorney.

2. Pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 10616 of 2022 on 26.08.2022 (Annexure R/6 to the petition), the petitioner moved before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Bihar, Patna and the said representation came to be disposed of and communicated to him

Patna High Court CWJC No.17764 of 2023(2) dt.12-09-2024 2/2 by memo No. 2342 dated 24.08.2023 by which taking into consideration that the respondent No. 5 Brajendra Prasad has already withdrawn the power of attorney granted to the petitioner, his claim for transfer of license as also its renewal was rejected.

3. Learned State Counsel submits that unless he gets an order against Brajendra Prasad, relating to the said saw mill or he takes fresh steps in the matter, no relief can be extended.

4. The best course left now is for the petitioner is to move before a competent Civil Court to get an order against the respondent No. 5 and only thereafter, he can approach the respondent authorities so far as the Ms. Brajendra Saw Mill (license No. 241 of 1996) is concerned.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Nirajkrs/- U