M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN his batch of writ, petitions the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs. (a) For quashing the letter No. 243 dated 28.10.2000 as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition, issued by the Secretary Government of erstwhile State of Bihar to the Principle Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar, Ranchi whereby he has directed that all saw mills, veneer mills, plywood mills and other timber based industries should not be allowed to function within 5 km from the notified forest area and the licensee saw mills should be directed to move 5 km away from the Notified forest area. (b) For quashing letter No. 745, dated 7.3.01 as contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition, issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranchi to the petitioner mentioning that the saw mill of the petitioner is to be closed because it is situated within 5 km. of the notified forest area and directing the petitioner to stop receipt of forest produce in its saw mill. (c) For quashing letter No. 1802 dated 16.5.01 as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Jharkhand, Ranchi directing all the subordinate authorities to direct all the saw mills to move 5 km away from the notified forest area within two years and thereafter process for closing down the saw mill be initiated. (d) For quashing letter No. 2707 dated 1.9.01 as contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition issued by the Dlvisiqnal Forest Officer, Ranchi Forest Division to the petitioners mentioning that it has been decided to close down the, saw mill of the petitioners within two years on the basis of letter No. 343, dated 28.10.01. (e) For a direction upon the Divisional Forest Officer to extend the validity of petitioner 'ssaw mill licence.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case of the petitioners as pleaded in their writ petitions are as under. The case of the petitioner in WPC No. 2122 of 2003 is that the petitioner firm is carrying on business of saw mill which was established in the year 1985. The said saw mill is situated over plot No. 1434 -A at Arrah Gate, Village -Mahilong, Ranchi. The petitioner firm is registered under the Bihar Finance Act and was granted license under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 and the Factories Act, 1948. It is stated that after the coming into force of the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990 the petitioner obtained a license under the said Act. The said license was being renewed time to time for one calendar year at a time. The petitioner applied before the competent authority for renewal of its license No. 53/ 03 for the calendar year 2003 but respondent No. 5 the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranchi has renewed the license only for a period of five months from 1.1.03 to 15.5.03 without assigning any reason whatsoever and without giving any show cause notice. It is contended that the forest authorities of the State of Jharkhand on misconstruction of the orders dated 12.12.1996 and 4.3.1997 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Govardhan 1997 SC 1228 and 1223, issued the impugned letters directing the petitioner to close down the saw mill and further stopped renewing the license of the petitioner.
(3.) THE case of the petitioner in WPC No. 2123 of 2003 is that the petitioner firm is doing the business of saw mill established in the year 1988 which is situated in Kantatoli Road, P.S. Lower Bazar, Distt. Ranchi. The petitioner is also registered under the Bihar Finance Act and license was granted under the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950 and Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961. The petitioner is also registered under the "Bihar Rules for the establishment of saw pits" and was also granted license under the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990. The petitioners further case is that the saw mill of the petitioner is in existence since 1985 and the license was time to time renewed by the respondents but the last renewal of the license was for a lesser period of one year i.e. 1.1.2003 to 15.5.2003. Thereafter the impugned letters were issued by the respondent authorities on the misconstruction and misinterpreting the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case referred hereinabove. ;