ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.--Petitioner was an applicant for issue of a Saw Mill Licence under Rule 163 of the Karnataka Forest Rules at a place called Kencharashatte Village, vide Annexure-'C'. An application of this nature was required to be considered in accordance with Rule 163 by the concerned competent Officer who in this case is the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Chitradurga Division, Chitradurga. 2. The requirement of the Rule at the relevant time was that the location of the Saw Mill should be beyond 2 K. Ms from the periphery of the forest area or the notified area. The application however came to be rejected by the first Respondent as per the order dated 26.6.1998 on the premise that the location of the proposed Saw M Ill was within 10 K. Ms from the forest boundary. It was also indicated that a licence for establishment of a new Saw Mill can be entertained only if it is beyond a distance of 10 K. Ms from the forest area, as per the decision of the Supreme Court and the Petitioner was intimated that it was not possible to issue a licence in this favour. Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of rejection had appealed to the second Respondent-Deputy Conservator of Forests at Bellary. However, the appeal also came to be dismissed as per the order dated 7.7.2000, copy at Annexure-'L', confirming the order passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests rejecting the request for issue of licence. 3. It was noticed by both authorities that the location of the proposed Saw Mill was at a distance of 3.5 K. Ms from the periphery of the forest area. It was also mentioned that as per the interim order of the Supreme Court and the undertaking given before the Supreme Court in a pending case before the Supreme Court in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1228 , applications for establishment of new Saw Mills also cannot be entertained and as such, the order was not one warranting interference in the appeal. The Petitioner being aggrieved by these orders had preferred Writ Petition No. 28056 of 2000 before this Court. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1228 , applications for establishment of new Saw Mills also cannot be entertained and as such, the order was not one warranting interference in the appeal. The Petitioner being aggrieved by these orders had preferred Writ Petition No. 28056 of 2000 before this Court. When the matter was under consideration before this Court, it was urged on behalf of the Respondent-authorities that the impugned orders are fully supported in view of the Government Order bearing No. 158/FDP/97 dated 21.1.1998 which clearly indicated that the establishment of a new Saw Mill can only be beyond a distance of 10 K. Ms from the forest area. In view of this defence taken by the Respondents, the writ Petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the orders as also the Government Order. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been presented not only for quashing the impugned orders passed by Respondents-1 and 2 but also the Government Order dated 21.1.1998 on the ground that it is in contravention of the statutory Rule 163(1) of the Karnataka Forest Rules. 4. Sri D.R. Nagaraja, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the grant of licence for setting up of a Saw Mill is regulated by the statutory provision under the provisions of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, read with Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. An express provision has been made under Rule 163 regulating the manner of issue of such licences, the requirements that are to be complied with and as to under what circumstances the application can be rejected. The learned Counsel submits that when the Rule expressly provides for grant of licence for establishing a Saw Mill if it is beyond a distance of 2 K. Ms from the limits of forest area or a specified area, the authorities could not have in ignorance of such Rule rely upon the Government Order dated 21.1.1998 for rejecting the application. Learned Counsel also submits that the Government Order itself is not tenable as it is in contravention of the statutory Rule and when a conflict arise as between the Government Order and the statutory Rule framed under the Act, necessarily, the Rule has to prevail. 5. Statement of objections has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. Learned Counsel also submits that the Government Order itself is not tenable as it is in contravention of the statutory Rule and when a conflict arise as between the Government Order and the statutory Rule framed under the Act, necessarily, the Rule has to prevail. 5. Statement of objections has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. The impugned orders sought to be supported by not only with reference to the Government Order 21.1.1998 but also with reference to the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Godavarman v. Union of India (UOI) which was a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court filed by a public spirited citizen endeavouring to seek orders from the Supreme Court for the preservation and protection of forest wealth and the ecological system of the country. 6. The learned Government Advocate drawing my attention to para 5 of the order of the Supreme Court dated 12.12.1996 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1228 submits that pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court, the State Government had constituted a Committee to look into the various aspects and submit a Report. That the Committee having looked into such aspects had submitted a Report and based on the same, an Affidavit had been filed before the Supreme Court in the proceedings before that Court as per the Affidavit dated 25.7.1997 sworn to by Sri P.G. Prasad, Under Secretary to Government, Forest and Environment Department. The learned Government Advocate draws specific attention to para 4(a) of his Affidavit, which reads as under: (e) It is respectfully submitted that the Rule 163 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (Rule 163 introduced w.e.f. 16.9.1974) provides that no saw mill or any other sawing contrivances can be established any where in the State without a licence under the Rules. No distance limit has been prescribed for the saw mill. However it is prescribed that saw pit or any other hand sawing contrivance for cutting or converting timber shall not be established within two kms. of forest boundaries without obtaining licence from Range Forest Officer. No distance limit has been prescribed for the saw mill. However it is prescribed that saw pit or any other hand sawing contrivance for cutting or converting timber shall not be established within two kms. of forest boundaries without obtaining licence from Range Forest Officer. An analysis of the distance of saw mills indicates that 116 saw mills, 2 ply wood industries and 2 veneer mills out of a total of 3045 industries (around 4%) are situated within a distance of two kms., 40% of the saw mills, 4% of ply wood industries and 15% of veneer mills are located between two to ten kms. the balance being beyond ten kms. It is suggested that no licence should be issued to establish new mills within ten kms. of forest boundaries (crow-fly distance). The learned Government Advocate submits that the State Government had made a categorical commitment before the Supreme Court that it will abide by the recommendations made by the Committee which had suggested that no licences should be issued for establishment of a new Saw Mill within 10 K. Ms of forest boundaries. The Supreme Court having accepted this Affidavit, a Government Order had been issued as follow up action and the authorities considering the application for issue of licence have only acted in consonance with the Government Order. The learned Government Advocate submits that not only the orders passed by the authorities but also the Government Order should be held to be valid and the writ petition dismissed. The directions of the Supreme Court referred to and relied upon by the learned Government Advocate is in para-3, condition 18 which reads as under: 18, There shall be a complete moratorium on the issue of new licences by the State Governments or any other authority for the establishment of any new wood based industry for the next five years after which the situation shall be reviewed with the concurrence of Ministry of Environment and Forests. 7. 7. The statement of objections also seeks to draw support from a subsequent order passed by the Supreme Court in the Godavarman series of cases dated 15th January, 1998 and the learned Government Advocate submits that as per the directions issued in the matter of grant of licence as occurring in para-18 of this order, a total moratorium has been imposed for a period of next five years in the matter of issue of new licences by the State Government and as such, the question of issue of new licence in favour of the Petitioner is not possible. This is so stated in para-5 of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the Respondents. 8. This direction has been given by the Supreme Court in the context of the situation that prevailed in the Hill States of North Eastern States and also the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The learned Government Advocate has not been able to point out that this particular direction has been issued even in the context of forests in the State of Karnataka. As such, reliance placed on this decision for holding that there is a moratorium of five years on issue of new licence for starting saw mills cannot be accepted as the reason that comes in the way of a licence being issued by the authorities in the State of Karnataka. 9. The learned Government Advocate also submits that no discrimination has been made by the State Government under the impugned orders granting licence to one Dayaram as per the order dated 4.6.1997 vis-a-vis the Petitioner inasmuch as in the case of the said Dayaram., though his application was also for issue of Saw Mill licence and in a nearby place, the application having been processed and a licence having been issued as per order dated 4.6.1997. The formalities and issue of licence had been completed before the Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 15.1.1998 as also the filing of the Affidavit before the Supreme Court as on 25.7.1997 which governs the issue of licence beyond 10 K. Ms distance from the forest area. The formalities and issue of licence had been completed before the Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 15.1.1998 as also the filing of the Affidavit before the Supreme Court as on 25.7.1997 which governs the issue of licence beyond 10 K. Ms distance from the forest area. It is stated that so far as the Petitioner is concerned, the Petitioner had not complied with the requirement for issue of licence before this date and formalities were completed only on 10.9.1997 by which time, the Respondents were bound by their Affidavit before the Supreme Court sworn to on 25.7.1997. 10. It is no doubt true that the argument of discrimination cannot stand in view of factual developments and while the other person in fact got his licence within the provisions of the Act as it prevailed at that time, by the time the Petitioner's application ripened for consideration after rectifying the defects, there was subsequent development which came in the way. 11. The two defences pleaded on behalf of the Respondents in support of the order are: (1): That location being at a distance of 3.5 K. Ms from the forest area i.e. within 10 K. Ms as per the Affidavit filed before the Supreme Court and (2): the moratorium for issue of new licences by the State Governments for a period of five years from 15th January, 1998 onwards. 12. In so far as the first argument is concerned, the learned Government Advocate is unable to place before the Court any order passed by the Supreme Court accepting the Affidavit and making it an order of the Court which would become the law within the meaning of Article 141 and which definitely should prevail and has to be enforced by all Courts and authorities. Unfortunately, no such order is brought to my attention or placed before me. It may be true that the State Government might have given an undertaking before the Supreme Court with regard to the setting up of an Expert Committee and also to abide and act by the recommendations of the Expert Committee which had recommended that no licence for establishment of Saw Mills should be issued within th distance of 10 K. Ms from the forest area. If the State Government wants to implement the recommendations and to abide by the undertaking given before the Supreme Court, it was also its responsibility to ensure that the corresponding statutory provisions are brought in conformity with such an undertaking. Such provisions cannot be left undisturbed and to remain on the statute book and the authorities are permitted to ignore such statutory provisions or to contravenes the same. It is no doubt true that in the absence of any statutory provisions, the Government Order dated 15.1.1998 would have certainly prevailed when the authorities passed orders. But when the manner of disposal of an application for issue of a Saw Mill licence is governed by the statutory provision and an Authority acting under such statutory provisions, becomes a statutory authority and is bound by the provisions of the Act and the Rules, when the Authority acts as a quasi judicial authority, it is bound to follow the Rules. It is not open to a quasi judicial functionary to pass orders either in ignorance or in contravention of the statutory provisions, even by relying upon the Government Order. The Government Order is issued in exercise of the executive power of the State Government and under the conduct of Government Business Rules. Such orders cannot have the effect of prevailing over statutory provisions. 13. Though the learned Government Advocate makes a submission that the State Government is duty bound to abide by the Affidavit and undertaking placed before the Supreme Court, it is for the State Government to take such steps to ensure that its undertaking becomes effective and workable. It is no good an answer to say that in the light of such an undertaking and the Affidavit, a statutory functionary can ignore statutory provisions or is enabled to contravene the same. If such a situation has been brought about, it is only due to the inaction and lack of proper application of mind on the part of the State Government. It is not as though the State Government was unaware of the provisions of Rule 163 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. When the Affidavit was sought to be placed before the Supreme Court, it was the duty of the State Government to have ensured that Rule was so amended to bring it in conformity with the Affidavit and the undertaking that was being given before the Supreme Court. When the Affidavit was sought to be placed before the Supreme Court, it was the duty of the State Government to have ensured that Rule was so amended to bring it in conformity with the Affidavit and the undertaking that was being given before the Supreme Court. If they failed to do so and as it transpires that even now it has not been set right, it is only the State Government which has to be blamed to bring about such a situation. 14. This Court while reviewing the administrative action of quasi-judicial functionaries and the statutory functionaries cannot accept a submission not supported in law. In the circumstances, the reasoning given by the first and second Respondents for rejecting the application for issue of licence is not sustainable in law. It is no doubt true that the law as declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts and this Court can take note of the law as declared by the Supreme Court while disposing of the matter before this Court. However, there should be in existence a law so declared by the Supreme Court which this Court can take note of and which can be called in aid in order to support the impugned orders. Unfortunately, the learned Government Advocate is not in a position to place such an order before the Court. 15. Therefore, the orders at Annexures-'G' and 'L' are accordingly quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. In the circumstances, the matter is remanded to the first Respondent, Deputy Conservator of Forests, to examine the request of the Petitioner in the light of the law as it prevails at the time of such consideration. 16. The State Government if is keen on giving effect to the Affidavit and the undertaking before the Supreme Court, it is inevitable that it should amend the Rule to bring it in conformity with such an undertaking and Affidavit and simply relying upon the Affidavit and the undertaking is of no value when it comes to the question of enforcing the statutory provisions. 17. Rule issued and made absolute. 18. The Authority is directed to dispose of the application within a period of six months from the Judgment.