Judgment 1. The petitioner challenges the order of 30 January, 2003 on his writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 13412 of 2002 : Baccha Prasad Jaiswal V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. 2. At one time, the petitioner held a licence under the Bihar Saw Miil Regulation Act, 1990 and the Rules of 1993. The last licence held by the petitioner expired in 1997. Thereafter, the licence of the petitioner was cancelled in the same year. With a cancelled licence the petitioner managed to deposit the fees for renewal of the licence but never challenged the order by which the licence had been cancelled. On the writ petition the learned Judge has recorded that there was a collusion between the petitioner and the local officials on this modality of deposit of fees and turned a blind eye to the saw mill which the petitioner continued to operate. 3. The learned Judge has also recorded that the petitioner did not challenge the order by which his licence had been cancelled nor moved any higher authority against cancellation of the licence, but was making deposit of renewal of the licence fees. The petitioner was running an irregular business. 4. The saw mills are closing down because of concern for protecting the environment and the rapidly disappearing forest cover. In the circumstances, while showing concern for preserving ecological balance, in effect under Article 51A (g) read with Article 48A of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court gave its verdict in re. T. N. Godavaran Thirumulpad V/s. Union of India and Ors., 1998 9 SCC 672 . 5. In the circumstances, the Court cannot give any direction that the petitioners licence be renewed or his saw mill should continue to work. 6. The Court finds that there is no error in the order of the learned Judge on the writ petition. 7. Dismissed.