ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner who is a Saw Mill owner has filed this application questioning the order dated 6.11.2004 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bhojpur at Arrah where under he has refused to renew his Saw mill licence in compliance of the instruction of the State Government contained in resolution dated 13.11.2003. Annexure-2. The petitioner has further challenged by filling I.A. No; 6415 of 2004 the order dated 20.12.2004 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 70 of 2004, Annexure7 by the District Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah refusing to grant interim relief to the petitioner in the said miscellaneous appeal on the ground that in terms of resolution of the State Government dated 13.11.2003 Annexure-2 the appellate authority namely the District Judge has not been empowered to consider and grant the interim relief. Perusal of the resolution dated 13.11.2003 indicates that there under State Government had resolved to vest the concerned District Judge with the Appellate jurisdiction against the order of the Distt. Committee/Principal Chief Conservator of Forest refusing to renew the licence of a saw mill owner with stipulation that the appellate power should be exercised without the authorisation to consider the prayer for interim relief in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. During the last hearing of the case under order dated 7.3.2005 I had called upon the State Government through the learned State counsel (G.P. VII to produce the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court restraining the State Government from vesting the power to consider the interim relief in the District Judge while hearing the appeal arising out of refusal to renew the licence of a saw mill owner passed by the District Committee/Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. Learned State counsel in compliance of the order of this Court dated 7.3.2005 has filed further counter affidavit today enclosing there under order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.8.2003 passed in I.A. No. 777 in I.A. Nos. 754-755 and 941 in writ petition (Civil) No. 202/1995 (Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit) referred to in the resolution dated 13.11.2003 which is contained in Annexure-A to the said Counter affidavit. 754-755 and 941 in writ petition (Civil) No. 202/1995 (Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit) referred to in the resolution dated 13.11.2003 which is contained in Annexure-A to the said Counter affidavit. Perusal of the said order does not indicate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while directing the State Government to vest the Appellate power with the District Judge ever restrained the District Judge from considering and granting the interim relief. 4. It appears from the perusal of the order dated 20.12.2004 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 70 of 2004 as contained in Annexure-7 that the learned District Judge. Bhojpur at Arrah refused to consider the prayer of the petitioner herein for grant of interim relief in the said appeal only on the ground that he had no power to consider the interim relief in the light of the resolution of the State Government dated 13.11.2003. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court never restrained the State Government from vesting the District Judge concerned with the power to consider and grant the interim relief in my opinion, the stipulation to the contrary contained in paragraph- 3 of the resolution dated 13.11.2003 is accordingly quashed. Having quashed the aforesaid portion of the resolution dated 13.11.2003 this Court further set aside the order dated 20.10.2004, Annexure-7 where under the District Judge has refused to consider the interim relief in compliance of the State Government resolution dated 13.11 .20Q4 with reference to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which in fact does not exist. The matter is now again remanded back to the District Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah who shall consider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim relief afresh against the refusal to renew the licence of the petitioner under order dated 6.11.2004, Annexure-4. 5. I am told that during the pendency of the writ petition the Miscellaneous Appeal stood transferred to the court of the Additional District Judges as such records of the Miscellaneous Appeal should be called by the District Judge, Arrah and then after he should reconsider the matter in regard to grant of interim relief where after he shall be at liberty to either hear the appeal himself or to transfer the same to any other Additional District Judge. 6. It goes without saving that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 7. 6. It goes without saving that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 7. The writ application is allowed in the light of the direction/observation made in this order. No cost.