D. P. KUNDU, J. ( 1 ) IN this Writ petition the petitioners he prayed for, inter alia, a writ of and/or in nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent to cancel, rescind, withdraw and set aside the order dated 25-10-94 passed in Forest Case No. 9/cop 1994-95 by the respondent No. 3 and the said order under challenge has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 'g'. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the Writ petitioners that they are the partners of a partnership firm in the name and style 'm/s. B. N. Plywood and Saw Mill'. For running a Saw Mill the petitioners formed the aforesaid partnership firm and have installed necessary machines in the area where sufficient timbers are available for feeding Saw Mill. They made an application on March 1994 in the prescribed Form before the Divisional Forest Officer, Cooch Behar Division, Coach Behar, for grant of necessary licence for running the said Saw Mill. For the purpose of deposit of application fee, the concerned authority is to pass necessary Challans in T. R Form No. 7 which the petitioners submitted before the concerned authority on February 5, 1993 but since the said authority failed and/or neglected to pass the said challan the Writ petitioners had no other alternative but to submit the application in prescribed Form along with a forwarding letter dated 11-3-94 stating therein the circumstances under which they had to submit the said application. The authority concerned did not take any step for passing the said challans so submitted by the Writ petitioner nor did the authority concerned assign any reason for non-passing of the said challan but the person similarly circumstanced to those of the petitioner have been favoured with the passing of the said challan. ( 3 ) IT has been averred by the writ petitioners that the usual practice for depositing the requisite application fee they are to fill to T. R. Form No. 7 which is to be placed before the concerned authority and after the concerned authority, under due verification of the same, passes the challan and the application fee is to be paid on the basis thereof. The concerned authority did not pass challan so submitted by the Writ petitioners and the Writ petitioners, in spite of their best efforts, could not deposit the necessary fee also with life said application for licence. The concerned authority did not pass challan so submitted by the Writ petitioners and the Writ petitioners, in spite of their best efforts, could not deposit the necessary fee also with life said application for licence. ( 4 ) THE writ petitioners' case is that the local Gram Panchayat had already issued necessary Trade Licence in favour of the petitioners for running the said Saw Mill And Panchayat also expressed to declare that Panchayat had no objection in the running of the said Saw Mill by the Writ petitioners. The Writ petitioners personally met the respondent No 3 and requested him for passing the said challan so that they could deposit necessary application fee but the said authority turned a deaf ear to their request. ( 5 ) THE Writ petitioners stated that all on a sudden the Writ petitioners received a communication issued by the respondent No. 3 wherefrom it transpired that the Writ petitioners' application for forest licence had been rejected because of non-compliance of the provision of Rule 4 (2) of the West Bengal Forest (Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills and other woodbased Industries) Rules 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules ). Rule 4 (2) of the said Rules reads as follows :"on receipt of any application for licence, Authorised Officer shall after making such inquiry as he may think fit and within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of such application, either grant or refuse to grant the licence: provided that no licence shall be granted unless the Authorised Officer is satisfied about the location, availability of raw materials, financial capacity and past records in business of such person. When the Authorised Officer refuses to grant such licence he shall record the reasons for so doing and such reason shall be communicated to the person in writing. " ( 6 ) IT is the case of the Writ petitioners that the aforesaid order of rejection so communicated by the communication dated 4-4-95 could not sustain in the eye of law because of the fact that no reason whatsoever been assigned therein for such rejection or in other words the said order of rejection could not be termed to be reasoned order as stipulated in the proviso to Rule 4 (2) of the said Rules. The said order of rejection has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 'c'. The said order of rejection has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 'c'. The Writ petitioners stated that having no other alternative the Writ petitioners moved this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was taken up for hearing by Samaresh Banerjea on July 11, 1994 and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case Samaresh Banerjea J was graciously pleased to allow the said Writ application and to set aside the said order of rejection dated 4-4-94. The aforesaid order of Samaresh Banerjea, J dated 11-7-94 has been annexed to the Writ petition as Annexure 'd'. The relevant part of the aforesaid order of Samaresh Banerjea, J, for the purpose of this case, is set out hereunder :-"the petitioner will apply afresh before the respondent No. 3 being the authorised officer for grant of licence accompanied by the requisite challan showing Rs. 50/- in terms of Rule 6 of the said Rules. And if such application is made, the respondent No. 3 shall without delay pass T. R. Form No. 7 after the same is duly filled in by the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 after receipt of such application shall dispose of the same within sixty days from the date of receipt of the application in accordance with law in terms of Rule 4 (2) of the said Saw Mills Rules. While making such consideration of the application of the petitioner the said respondent may also take into consideration the recommendation of the local Panchayat being annexure 'b' to the Writ petition if the same is permit in law". ( 7 ) CONSEQUENT upon the aforesaid order of Samaresh Banerjea, J the Writ petitioners applied and/or submitted their application for obtaining licence of Plywood Industry for the said Saw Mill and enclosed therewith the xerox copy of the partnership deed along with application fee for Rs. 50 vide-challan dated 14-9-94 and prayed for consideration of the same. The petitioners, for the said firm, procured machinery and installed the same in the Saw Mill and after submission of the aforesaid application for licence, the Saw Mill was inspected by the Assistant Forest Officer, Sri B. Dutta on September, 26, 1994 along with the Range Officer, Madarihat Range. The Writ petitioners duly submitted necessary documents, namely. The petitioners, for the said firm, procured machinery and installed the same in the Saw Mill and after submission of the aforesaid application for licence, the Saw Mill was inspected by the Assistant Forest Officer, Sri B. Dutta on September, 26, 1994 along with the Range Officer, Madarihat Range. The Writ petitioners duly submitted necessary documents, namely. (1) deeds of land, (2) mutation certificate (3) financial certificate in favour of the petitioners by bank and (4) sources of raw materials, before the concerned authority on September 28, 1994 for consideration of the same. The Writ petitioners claim to have duly complied with all the formalities and fulfilled all the pre-requisites for having a licence, but the Writ petitioners were served with a Memo being No. 6326/15-168/9-11-94 issued by the respondent No. 3 annexing therewith a copy of the order dated 25-10-94 passed by the respondent No. 3 rejecting the petitioners' application for licence. According to the Writ petitioners, the rejection of the petitioners' application for licence was made on some baseless, fanciful and erroneous finding. A copy of the said order has been annexed to the Writ petition as Annexure 'g'. ( 8 ) THE Writ petitioners in this Writ application have called in question the aforesaid order dated 25-10-94 passed by the respondent No. 3, inter alia, on the grounds of (a) non-application of mind, (b) utter high handedness of the concerned authorities (c) biasness and arbitrariness on the part of the concerned authorities, (d) errors apparent on the face of the record, (e) different treatment made to the Writ petitioners in comparison to other Saw Mills similarly circumstanced. ( 9 ) THIS Court holds that under Rule 4 (2) of the said Rules the Authorised Officer is duty bound to make inquiry as he may think fit and thereafter either grant or refuse to grant the licence and all these procedures should be completed within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of such application. The proviso to Rule 4 (2) of the said Rules in no uncertain term, control the power of the Authorised Officer laying down that no licence shall be granted unless the Authorised Officer is satisfied about (1) location (2) availability of raw materials, (3) financial capacity and (4) past records in business of the person who makes an application for licence. The said proviso also compels the Authorised Officer to (a) record the reasons in case of refusal to grant licence and (b) communicate such reasons to the person concerned to writing. Therefore, so long the Authorised Officer is not satisfied about (1) location, (2) availability of raw materials, (3) financial capacity and (4) past records in business of the person making an application for licence, the Authorised Officer does not have any jurisdiction to grant any licence. Absent of satisfaction on any one point out of the above four points does not confer jurisdiction to grant licence. Such satisfaction on all the aforesaid four points in sine qua non to grant of the licence and mandatory though the period of sixty days is directory. ( 10 ) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Shri Sitara Sugar Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. ( AIR 1990 SC 1277 ) in pare 49 of the Report laid down the law as follows :-"where a question of law is at issue, the Court may determine the rightness of the impugned decision on its own independent Judgement. If the decision of the authority does not agree with that which the Court considers to be the right one, the finding of law by the authority is liable to be upset. Where it is a finding of fact, the Court examines only the reasonableness of the finding. When that finding is found to be rational and reasonably based on evidence, in the sense that all relevant material has been taken into account and no irrelevant material has influenced the decision, and the decision is one which any reasonably minded person, acting on such evidence, would have come to, then judicial review is exhausted even though the finding may not necessarily be what the Court would have come to as a trier of fact. Whether an order is characterised as legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial, or, whether it is a determination of law or fact, the judgment of the expert body, entrusted with power, is generally treated as final and the judicial function is exhausted when it is found to have "warrant in the record" and a rational basis in law. See Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States (1938) 307 US 125 : 83 Law Ed. 1147. See also Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB. See Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States (1938) 307 US 125 : 83 Law Ed. 1147. See also Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB. ( 11 ) IT is well-settled that any act of the repository of power, with the legislative or administrative or quasi judicial is open to challenge if it is in conflict with the Constitution or the Governing Act or the general principles of law of the land or it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have made it. ( 12 ) IN Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign compensation Commission, (1969) 2 AC 147. Lord Pearce observed as follows :-"lack of jurisdiction may arise in many ways. There may be an absence of those formalities things which are conditions precedent to the tribunal having any jurisdiction to embark of an inquiry. Or the tribunal may at the end make an order that it has no jurisdiction to make. Or in the intervening stage, while engaged on a proper inquiry, the tribunal may depart from the rules of natural justice; or may ask itself the wrong questions or it may take into account matters which it was not directed to take into account. Thereby it was step outside its jurisdiction. It would turn its inquiry into something not directed by Parliament and fail to make the inquiry which Parliament did direct. Any of these things would cause its purported decision to be a nullity. " ( 13 ) IN 1992 the House of Lords strongly confirmed this analysis in R. v. Hull University Visitor ex. (1993) AC 682 (Pages 701, 702)lord Browne Wilkinson, inter alia, observed as follows :-"in my judgment the decision in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) 2 A. C. 147 rendered obsolete the distinction between errors of law on the face of the record and other errors of law by extending the doctrine of ultra vires. Thence forward it was to be taken that Parliament had only conferred the decision-making power on the basis that was to be exercised on the correct legal basis: a misdirection in law in making decision therefore rendered the decision ultra vires. Professor Wade considers that the true effect of Anisminic is still in doubt. Administrative Law, 6th ed. , pp. 299 et seq. Professor Wade considers that the true effect of Anisminic is still in doubt. Administrative Law, 6th ed. , pp. 299 et seq. But in my judgment the decision of this House in O'reilly v. Mackman (1983) 2 A. C. 237 establishes the law in the sense that I have stated. Lord Diplock, with whose speech all the other members of the committee agreed, said, at p. 278 that the decision in Anisminic:"has liberated English public law for the letters that the courts had therefore imposed upon themselves so far as determinations of inferior courts and statutory tribunals were concerned, by drawing esoteric distinctions between errors of law committed by such tribunals that were to their jurisdiction, and errors of law committed by them within their jurisdiction. The break-through the Anisminic case made was the recognition by the majority of this House that if a tribunal whose jurisdiction was limited by statute or subordinate legislation mistook the law applicable to the facts as had found them, it must have asked itself the wrong question, i. e. , one into which it was not empowered to inquire and so had no jurisdiction to determine. Its purported 'determination,' not being 'a determination' within the meaning of the empowering legislation, was accordingly a null. ( 14 ) THEREFORE, I agree with Mr. Burke that in generally any error of law made by an administrative tribunal or inferior court in reaching its decision can be quashed for error of law," ( 15 ) THE decision under challenge should be tested on the basis of the above principles laid down by high authorities. ( 16 ) IT has already been stated earlier that under Rule 4 (2) of the said Rules the Authorised Officer is duty bound to make an inquiry as he may think fit it appears from Annexure 'g' of the Writ petition that the Authorised Officer caused an inquiry to be made. The relevant lines from Annexure 'g' read as follows :-"as required by rules an inquiry by gazetted Officer Sri B. Dutta, W. B. F. S. , Asst. Forest Officer and Range Officer, Madarihat Range was conducted on 26-9-94 in presence of the applicants. Also applicants were given opportunity to submit documents-supporting their claim for being financially capable and in a position to obtain sufficient raw materials. Forest Officer and Range Officer, Madarihat Range was conducted on 26-9-94 in presence of the applicants. Also applicants were given opportunity to submit documents-supporting their claim for being financially capable and in a position to obtain sufficient raw materials. " ( 17 ) THUS it is evident that not only an inquiry was made but also the Writ petitioners were given opportunity to submit relevant documents in support of their case. Thus there is no doubt upto this stage provisions of Rule 4 (2) of the said Rules have been complied with. ( 18 ) IT has been stated earlier that for the purpose of granting licence the Authorised Officer should be satisfied about (1) locality, (2) availability of raw materials, (3) financial capacity and (4) past records in business. It appears from Annexure 'g' of the Writ petition that Authorised Officer recorded his points for consideration for arriving at a decision in respect of all the aforesaid four points. Financial Capacity while dealing with the financial capacity of the Writ petitioner the Authorised Officer came to conclusion that as per documents submitted the applicants' financial capacity was revealed as being capable of providing finance upto Rs. 1,84,969. 50. This conclusion was arrived at on the basis of the documents submitted by the applicants. This finding is not under challenge. But the Authorised Officer further held that establishment of such an industry involving peeling machines, motors, generator, purchasing of raw material and its fashioning, payment of salary, bonus etc. to labour requires minimum of Rs. 5,00,000=00. This finding has been questioned by the Writ petitioner as based on no evidence. It is true that while arriving at this decision the Author Officer did not refer to any document or any other evidence. It is expected that had there been any evidence, or material on record the Authorised Officer ought to have referred to such evidence or materials while arriving at the above decision. At the time of argument also learned advocate appearing for the respondents could not produce any evidence or material from the records in support of this decision. The learned advocate appearing for the respondents contended that tile Authorised Officer having experience of the matter can reasonably come to such conclusion. The Court is unable to accept this contention. At the time of argument also learned advocate appearing for the respondents could not produce any evidence or material from the records in support of this decision. The learned advocate appearing for the respondents contended that tile Authorised Officer having experience of the matter can reasonably come to such conclusion. The Court is unable to accept this contention. This Court is of the view that even for a reasonable man there may be some evidence or material to arrive at a conclusion. There must be objective consideration of some factors or materials in absence of which arriving at a satisfaction can be said to be fanciful and arbitrary. The Court holds that the decision of the Authorized office that establishment of such industry requires minimum of Rs. 5,00,000=00 (lakhs) is fanciful and arbitrary and not legal. Therefore, the conclusion of the Authorised Officer that financial capacity of the applicants is not at all satisfactory to run such a business is fanciful, arbitrary and not good in law. ( 19 ) AVAILABILITY of raw material. Regarding availability of raw material, it appears from Annexure 'g' of the Writ petition, the Authorised Officer recorded finding as follow :-"on making inquiry, it is found that there are already 4 Saw Mills and 2 Veneer Mills based on forest produce existing in the locality. As such, there will be paucity of raw materials. As regards procuring it from Bhutan the party has not produced any licence to import timber and moreover the nearer Bhutan source Phuntsholing is already having a huge plywood and wood based industry at Gadu. Hence availability from Bhutan is not easily possible. Also, with Government policy being oriented more towards forest conservation and environment preservation the exploitation of forest for commercial purpose. The availability of raw material is scare, also the jot lands/private lands are predominantly having agricultural crops. Whatever tree cover is there is planted with objective of providing healthy environment, prevention of soil erosion and to enable the local populace to meet their fuel, fodder and timber requirements. The availability of raw material is scare, also the jot lands/private lands are predominantly having agricultural crops. Whatever tree cover is there is planted with objective of providing healthy environment, prevention of soil erosion and to enable the local populace to meet their fuel, fodder and timber requirements. " ( 20 ) THIS Court holds that the finding of the Authorised Officer, quoted above, regarding availability of row material is reasonable, rational and reasonably based on evidence, in the sense that all relevant material has been taken into account and no irrelevent material has influenced the decision, and the decision is one which any reasonably minded person acting on such evidence gathered during enquiry would have come to such finding. Therefore, judicial review is exhausted so far the availability of raw material is concerned. This matter is not an appeal from the decision contained in Annexure 'g' of the Writ petition. This Court is satisfied that the Authorised Officer did not abuse his lawful authority by unfair treatment. The Authorised Officer, after according fair treatment to the applicants arrived at the decision which it is authorised by law to decide, which is correct in the eyes of this Court. ( 21 ) LORD Hailsham of St. Marylebone L. C. in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans (1982) WLR 1155 at pp. 1160-61 stated as follows :-"the function of the court is to see that lawful authority is not abused unfair treatment and not to attempt itself the task entrusted to that an thority by the law. . . . . . The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment, rest on a matter which it is authorised law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court. "in the same case Lord Brightman said:"judicial review, as the words imply not an appeal from a decision, but review of the manner in which the decision was made. " ( 22 ) LOCATION of establishment. "in the same case Lord Brightman said:"judicial review, as the words imply not an appeal from a decision, but review of the manner in which the decision was made. " ( 22 ) LOCATION of establishment. Regarding location of the establishment, appears from Annexure 'g' of the Writ petition the Authorised Officer recorded his finding as follows :-"the location of the mill is close to the world famous one homed rhino Wild Life Sanctuary, Jaldapara, the said establishment will pose serious threat to the nearest flora and fauna of the sanctuary forest and will lead to environment hazards posing serious threat to the vegetation cover. " ( 23 ) THIS finding of the Authorised Officer has been called in question in Paragraph-24 of the Writ petition. The writ petitioners stated in said paragraph that the selfsame authority found that there are 4 saw mills and 2 veneer mills in the locality and licences for the same have been-issued by the selfsame authority and at that point of time the plea of close location of the said firms to the said Sanctuary was not taken and the said firms have been allowed to run their business and running their business while in case of the petitioner the plea of close location has been brought for rejecting their application. It was further stated that from the said finding it will be evident that a different treatment has been meted out to the petitioner so as to reject his application in between the firms similarly circumstanced which is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and a pick and choose met has been adopted in so far as the petitioners are concerned which cannot be sustained in law. ( 24 ) IT was contended on behalf of the writ petitioners that there are other Saw Mills functioning within the near about area where the Writ petitioners' Saw Mill is located. The Writ petitioner raised the question so the effect that if the other Saw Mills are permitted to operate in the near about location then why in the case of the Writ petitioners' the licence should be refused? In the Writ petition particulars of those Saw Mills have not been disclosed. No material has been placed before this Court to find out whether respondents acted legally while permitting the other saw mills to operate to the near about location. In the Writ petition particulars of those Saw Mills have not been disclosed. No material has been placed before this Court to find out whether respondents acted legally while permitting the other saw mills to operate to the near about location. At this stage it may be benefited to refer to the decision of Supreme Court to Chandigarh Administration and Anr. v. Jagjit Singh and Anr. Etc. [jt 1995 (1) SC 445]. The relevant lines from the said decision are quoted hereinbelow :-"generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent-authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuance a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. The order in favour of the other person if found to be contrary to law or not warrant in the facts and circumstances of his case it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extra ordinary and discritionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent-authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality once again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law-but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent authority to repeat the illegality, the court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/wrong order nor can such illegal order constitutes the basis for a legitimate complaint or discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of justice and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of justice and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. " ( 25 ) THIS Court is of the view that while dealing with the location of establishment the Authorised Officer can reasonably take into consideration the effect of the establishment in the surrounding area. There is nothing wrong in it. Such consideration is material and relevant. Under these circumstances the challenge thrown by the Writ petitioners fails. The owners of the 4 saw mills and 2 veneer mills are not parties in this case. Therefore, this Court refrains from making any comment which may be prejudicial to their interest because this Court is bound to follow principles of natural justice. Views expressed by the Authorised Officer in last but two paragraphs of the decision under challenge are important. This Court is in agreement with the views expressed in those two paragraphs. ( 26 ) PAST record of the business. Regarding past record of the business the Authorised Officer, as it appears from Annexure 'g' of Writ petition, recorded his findings as follows :"furthermore, so far as the past record are concerned it appears that on 20-3-94 the then Range Officer, Madarihat Rang made a seizure in the premises of the petitioner, Sri Bhabatosh Roy. Some timber without any valid Transit Pass were recovered from his custody along with saw blade which amounts to a serious forest offence and a show cause notice was issued to him and in response to that Show Cause Notice the petitioner, Sri Bhabatosh Roy admitted that the seized timber did not bear any Govt. or proper hammer marks or Transit Pass as require under the provision of law. Here application before authorities for licence can not be construed as entitlement to establish a mill without express licence issued finally. The petitioner has started business without licence, without having any legal locus standi". ( 27 ) THIS Court is of the view that the above quoted finding of the Authorised officer can not be interfered because the Authorised Officer after referring to certain facts arrived at a conclusion. Such conclusion has rational nexus with the fact discussed therein. The Authorised Officer did not travel beyond his jurisdiction. No extraneous matter was taken into consideration. Such conclusion has rational nexus with the fact discussed therein. The Authorised Officer did not travel beyond his jurisdiction. No extraneous matter was taken into consideration. While arriving at the aforesaid decision the Authorise Officer took into consideration the relevant matters. Therefore, this Court finds that the findings of the Authorised Officer regarding past record is also good in law. This Court while exercising power of judicial review is not discharging the function of an appellate Court. ( 28 ) THE learned advocate appearing for the Writ petitioners referred to three decisions of Supreme Court namely (1) The Comptroller and Auditor General v. K. S. Jagannathan [air 1988 SC 537; Para-20], (2) Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U. P. ( AIR 1991 SC 537 , Para-21] (3) Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair ( AIR 1992 SC 152 ). ( 29 ) IN view of the discussions made earlier the three decisions do not help the writ petitioners in any way. ( 30 ) RULE-8 of the said Rules lays down the provisions for appeal against the order under challenge in this Writ petition. The Writ petitioners did not prefer any appeal against the order under challenge in this Writ petition. Proper course would have been to prefer an appeal under Rule-8 and exhaust the statutory remedy available to the Writ petitioner. In an appeal evidence on record can be reassessed and a new decision can be given which is not possible in case of judicial review. ( 31 ) FOR the reasons discussed hereinabove the Writ application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.