JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. : Petitioner is owner of the saw-mill under the name and style “M/s. Joy Durga Saw Mill” situated at Garedipanchan, P.S.-Balipatna in the district of Khurda. Initial¬ly he was granted with the license, Annexure-3 dated 16.08.1995 for a period of two years to run the saw-mill. After expiry of that period, he applied for renewal of the said license, but the prayer was rejected by order dated 29.03.2000 of the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Licensing Officer,Puri Division basically on the ground that the saw mill is situated within a radial distance of ten kilometers from the reserved forest and the license is not renewable in view of the direction given by the Apex Court. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the aforesaid order No.239, dated 29.03.2000- Annexure-1, to issue appropriate direction to the opposite parties to renew his saw mill license and also to award a compensation to the tune of Rs.12 lakh for the loss which is suffered in business for non-renewal of the liccense or in the alternative to grant relief which he is otherwise entitled to. 2. Mr. U.K. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the State Government without formulating a policy to rehabilitate the saw mill owners cannot cancel or refuse renewal of their licenses. He also submits that in view of the direction given by the Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulk¬pad etc v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1228 , the State Government is duty bound to rehabilitate saw mill owners, whose licenses are now not renewable in view of the new forest conser¬vation policy, either by directing the Orissa Forest Development Corporation to purchase and take over such saw mills or by erect¬ing new saw mills in permissible places. In support of his con¬tention, Mr. Nanda cited the interim order passed on 17.09.2005 in T.N. Godavarman’s case (supra) and the order passed in the case of Maa Mangala Saw Mill v. State of Orissa & another in O.J.C. No.11164 of 1996 of this Court. 3. Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2, submitted that license of the petitioner’s saw mill was not renewed as the saw mill is situated within the prohibited zone. 3. Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2, submitted that license of the petitioner’s saw mill was not renewed as the saw mill is situated within the prohibited zone. He states that the Apex Court has clearly deprecated grant or renewal of license to the saw mills situated within 10 kilometers of any forest. Mr. Mishra further submitted that there is no law, scheme or programme of the State Government to rehabilitate the saw mill owners whose licenses are not renewed and so the demand of the petitioner for rehabilitation and compensation is without any base. Mr. Mishra also relied on the case of T.N. Godarvarman Thirumulkpad etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1228 in support of his contention. 4. Mr. S. K. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.3 stated that the Orissa Forest Development Corporation (in short ‘O.F.D.C.’) has no contemplation of acquiring or running any saw mill now and there is also no need for the corporation to acquire or take over the saw mill of the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, petitioner was running the saw mill at Garedipanchan after obtaining license under Annexure-3 for the period from 16th August, 1995 to 15th August, 1997. He filed renewal application, but the same was rejected vide order Annex¬ure-1, as his saw mill was situated within ten kilometers from the reserved forest and he was intimated of this order under Annexure-2. Now the sole grievance of the petitioner is that opposite parties 1 and 2 could not refuse renewal of the saw mill license without formulating rehabilitation policy and basing on such plea he is asking for compensation and direction to the opposite parties for his rehabilitation. Reliance is placed on the case of Maa Mangala Saw Mill (supra) and the interim order passed in T.N. Godavarman’s case (supra) in this regard. In the case of Maa Mangala Saw Mill (supra) this Court simply directed the Divisional Forest Officer, Nayagarh to re-hear the application for renewal and to dispose of the same according to law by a reasoned order. In the case of Maa Mangala Saw Mill (supra) this Court simply directed the Divisional Forest Officer, Nayagarh to re-hear the application for renewal and to dispose of the same according to law by a reasoned order. In the present case opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and a reasoned order was passed indicat¬ing therein that after the direction of the Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman’s case, renewal of licenses of saw ills situated within a radius of ten kilometers of any reserved forest is not permissible. There is no dispute that the saw mill of the peti¬tioner is situated within a radial distance of 10 kilometers from the forest area. So, the refusal order passed under Annexure-1 cannot be termed as illegal or arbitrary. 6. Mr. Nanda vehemently argued that in view of the interim order passed by the Apex Court in I.A. No.9411 (at internal page 25 of the unattested Xerox copy filed by the petitioner) the State Government must rehabilitate the saw mill owners whose licenses are not renewed. On query, he is however not able to say whether such direction relates to the State of Orissa. Be that as it may, forming a policy for rehabilitation is an executive act of the State. Without approaching the State Government with any rehabilitation proposal, the petitioner should not seek for issue of such direction from the Court. Neither in license Annexure-3 there is any condition nor there is any agreement that in the case of non-renewal of license of the saw mill of the petitioner, the State would be under obligation to rehabilitate the petition¬er by erecting a saw mill in a non-prohibited zone or by direct¬ing the O.F.D.C. to take over such defunct saw mill. We also do not find any law, rule or notification that the State would reha¬bilitate any saw mill owner whose license is not renewed for any valid reason. In such backdrop we donot find any substance in the claim of the petitioner for compensation towards loss of business or for any direction to the State to rehabilitate him. It is up to the petitioner to approach the State Government with the re¬quest for rehabilitation and it is open to the State Government to consider the same in accordance with law, to which we express no opinion. It is up to the petitioner to approach the State Government with the re¬quest for rehabilitation and it is open to the State Government to consider the same in accordance with law, to which we express no opinion. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is found to be without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. P. K. TRIPATHY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.