JUDGMENT : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:- Advocate Badar states that there are total 12 Writ Petitions in this lot drawn by Respondent Forest Department. All Saw Mills involved therein have been given licence after J 6/7 /1987 by officer other than the State Government or Chief Conservation of Forest. Forest Department states that therefore. Chief Conservation of Forest (Protection). Nagpur vide government letter dated 12/1/2005 revoked those licences. Writ Petitions 2884/ 2006. 3040/2006. 4283/2006. 4657/2006. 4658/2006. 2288/2007 are admitted matters while Writ Petitions 3041/2006, 373912006, 5312/2006. 134912007.5402/2007.5945/2007 are for admission. As the matters pertain to Saw Mills and conservation of Forest, it appears that this Court has been making effort to dispose of them finally and all matters were kept there for at the end of admission board since quite some time. All Petitioners before this Court are running Saw Mills and by interim orders passed in the matter, their Mills continue to function. As few matters are already admitted, we hereby admit Writ Petition Nos.3041/2006. 3739/2006, 5312/ 2006, 1349/2007. 5402/2007, 594512007 for final hearing and proceed to hear them finally by consent. 2. The facts essential for determination of issues involved show that the basic challenge in all these matters is same. The different Petitioners challenge respectively the orders dated 22/512006 in W.P. No.2884/ 2006 or dated 24/5/2006 in W.P. No.3041/ 2006 or dated 26/5/2006 in W.P. No.3040/ 2006 or dated 30/5/2006 in W.P. No.2288/ 2007, W.P. No.540212007, W.P. No.4658/ 2006 or dated 31/5/2006 in W.P. No.3739/ 2006 or dated 1/6/2006 in W.P. No.4657/2006 or dated 30/612006 in W.P. No.4283/2006 or dated 18/8/2006 in W.P. No.1349/2007 and dated 16/9/2006 in W.P. No.5312/2006 passed by Respondent 2 Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) and seek quashing of communications dated 11/1/2005 and 12/1/ 2005; notification dated 16-7-1981. Though all these orders by the Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) are of different dates. They are identical. Petitioners also pray for a declaration that the issuance of licence by Respondent No.3 Deputy Conservator of Forest Nagpur in their favour in 1982/1983 is legal, valid and binding upon the Respondents. Respondents before this court are State of Maharashtra through its Secretary (Forest), The Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) at Nagpur, Deputy Conservator of Forest formerly known as Divisional Forest Officer, Nagpur. The Chief Conservator of Forest (Territorial), Nagpur and The Central Empowered Committee constituted by Hon'ble Apex Court. Respondents before this court are State of Maharashtra through its Secretary (Forest), The Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) at Nagpur, Deputy Conservator of Forest formerly known as Divisional Forest Officer, Nagpur. The Chief Conservator of Forest (Territorial), Nagpur and The Central Empowered Committee constituted by Hon'ble Apex Court. Identical order dated 30/ 6/2006 passed by Respondent 2 Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) is also questioned by Petitioner in W.P. No.5945/ 2007 but then he challenged that order in appeal before Respondent 1 State of Maharashtra. Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal "for the present" on 18/612007 but by recording the findings that as per government decision dated 27/4/2007, for bringing uniformity in government policy and Rules regarding Saw Mills, a Committee has been constituted and said committee is going to consider the orders passed by Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court with Rules to bring in such uniformity and consistency. However, said order is only a proposal put up by office before Hon'ble Minister because language therein reveals that it was only for information of Hon'ble Minister. Even the "dismissal of appeal for the present" appears to be a mere recommendation which states that after receipt of report of committee, government may consider it and resolve future policy. 3. At this stage it is necessary to briefly point out the decision taken by State Government on 16/7/1981. By notification issued in exercise of powers under section is 41 and 76 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 in its application to State of Maharashtra, Government of Maharashtra amended Bombay Transit of Forest Produce (Vidarbha Region and Saurashtra and Kutch Areas) Rules, 1960 and a sub-rule" 11" came to be added therein after sub-rule "10" of Rule 23. By sub-rule (II-a) the exercise by Divisional Forest Officer of his powers to grant licence for erecting or operating any machinery or Saw Mill for cutting or converting of timber and his power to refuse, renew and revoke such licence has been subjected to Superintendence, direction and control of the State Government. By sub-rule (11-b) State Government has reserved to itself power to issue directions to Divisional Forest Officers in the matter either generally or in any specified category of cases by notification in Official Gazette. These directions are binding on licensing authorities, licensees and other persons concerned. By sub-rule (11-b) State Government has reserved to itself power to issue directions to Divisional Forest Officers in the matter either generally or in any specified category of cases by notification in Official Gazette. These directions are binding on licensing authorities, licensees and other persons concerned. The directions can be issued when State Government is satisfied that for conservation of trees and forest or for carrying out any other purposes of Act it is necessary to issue the same. On same day, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (11) of a Rule 23 of Bombay Forest Rules, 1942, State issued certain directions for guidance of licensing authorities in relation to grant of new licences. Vide its clause 1 it specified that until further orders by State Government no new licences shall be granted by Divisional Forest Officer. But then an exception has been made in matters where no objection certificate for establishment of Saw Mill was given by Forest Department prior to 16/7/1981 and even there prior approval of Chief Conservator of Forest has been made compulsory. But then for use of power under this exception, 3 conditions are required to be satisfied. Those conditions are :- (1)-the applicant has purchased machinery or incurred financial or other liabilities of substantial nature, prior to the date of issue of said directions, (2)-he has fulfilled other formalities relating to industrial licence, municipal licence etc. and (3)-the Saw Mill is to be located at least 10 km. outside the boundary of any reserved or protected Forest. On 19th August, 1981 in exercise of powers under above sub-rule (11) an amendment is issued and requirement of prior approval of Chief Conservator of Forest in clause 1 has been substituted by prior approval of the Conservator of Forest. In the guidelines, after clause 2, a new clause i.e. clause 3 has been added and a special provision has been made for grant of licence by Divisional Forest Officer to Saw Mill actually in operation on 16/7/1981 without a valid licence if State Government is satisfied that it's closure would not be proper in the public interest having regard to the substantial investment made and the services rendered by it to the members of the community in the area. But then this is subject to conditions specified in sub-clauses (2) and (3) of clause 1. But then this is subject to conditions specified in sub-clauses (2) and (3) of clause 1. The application for such licence needs to be made before 30th September, 1981 and applicant has to pay necessary licence fee and renewal fee for the entire period right from initial commencement of the operation by his Saw Mill. By explanation a Saw Mill is deemed to have been actually in operation on 16/7/1981 notwithstanding fact that it's operation was stopped or suspended earlier at the instance of the Divisional Forest Officer on the ground of not holding a valid Saw Mill licence. On the 1st August, 1982, these guidelines/directions have been further amended and in its clauses 2 and 3, at both places word "State Government" have been replaced by words "Chief Conservator of Forest". Same substitution has also been effected in its clause 4. In short after 1/8/1982, to enable Divisional Forest Officer to grant licence to Saw Mill, no objection certificate by Forest Department prior to 16/7/1981 and prior approval of Conservator of Forest is essential. 4. The petitioners have referred to Writ Petition No.2884/2006 filed by 8 Petitioners as main petition. They claim that they are running their respective Saw Mill in special timber zone formed by Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation i.e. M.I.D.C. on plots separately allotted to them by it in its industrial area at Hingna Road in Nagpur District. Plot is purchased for erecting Saw Mill in the year 1980 and it is more than 10 km. from any reserved or protected Forest. Forest Department has accordingly certified this distance vide its latter dated 10/3/2003. The timber zone has a police station and the check post of Forest Department. In September and October, 1980 they applied to M.I.D.C. for grant of building permit and its executive engineer asked them to obtain licence for erecting a Saw Mill from Forest Department. M.I.D.C. sent a communication on 10/10/1980 to Divisional Forest Officer at Nagpur informing that 11 Saw Mills have been allotted land and their request for grant of licence may be considered by Forest Department. Forest Department took one year and four months to process applications and in February, 1982 called upon Petitioners to deposit requisite license fees. In the meanwhile Petitioners had completed their installation work and started Saw Mill in the hope that they would be granted licences. Forest Department took one year and four months to process applications and in February, 1982 called upon Petitioners to deposit requisite license fees. In the meanwhile Petitioners had completed their installation work and started Saw Mill in the hope that they would be granted licences. They deposited requisite fees and ultimately in April, 1982 Saw Mill licence was issued to them in pursuance of letter dated 10/2/1982 issued by Conservator of Forest. No objection to operation of the Saw Mill was taken by anybody for about 24 years thereafter and their licences were also renewed till 2008. Then they point out the issuance of Government notification dated 16/7/1981 and amendments made to it on 19/8/1981 and 1/8/ 1982. Because of these amendments Divisional Forest Officer continued to be the licensing authority. They con tend that requirement of no objection certificate of Forest Department is vague and no procedure regulating its grant are laid down. They point out that unlicensed Saw Mills actually in operation illegally on 16/7/1981 have been protected and thus, law-abiding businessmen like them have been victimized. It is claimed that their applications for licence are also filed before 30/9/1981 and hence this treatment according to them is discriminatory. The classification between illegal/unlicensed Saw Mills and their Saw Mills is stated to be arbitrary and without any nexus with the object. Reasonable intelligentsia is stated to be missing and protection given to M/s. Kaka Wood Industries is pressed into service. Reliance is also placed on circular dated 26/10/1981 authorizing Divisional Forest Officer to issue new licence without reference to Government but with prior approval of Conservator of Forest. They also pointed out history of previous litigation & urged that Forest Department has accepted their Saw Mills and licensed Saw Mills in an affidavit filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court in public interest litigation in 1997-98. They point out order dated 21/7/2005 passed in Writ Petition No.2441/2005 and then show cause notices issued to them on 21/2/2006 with reference to communications dated 11/1/2005 and 12/1/ 2005. Their Saw Mills are sought to be closed because the same are found not to be in existence before 16/7/1981 and licence in their favour is subsequent to it. They point out order dated 21/7/2005 passed in Writ Petition No.2441/2005 and then show cause notices issued to them on 21/2/2006 with reference to communications dated 11/1/2005 and 12/1/ 2005. Their Saw Mills are sought to be closed because the same are found not to be in existence before 16/7/1981 and licence in their favour is subsequent to it. They also contend that no objection certificate or approval of State Government was not necessary because of subsequent amendments and Petitioners cannot be held responsible as they had approached Department wel1 before 16/7/1981 and cannot be blamed or penalized for the fault of Department. It is stated that in impugned orders, Respondent 2 has revoked their licences restricting considering of their grievance due to communication dated 12/1/2005 and ignoring the proof/material made available by Petitioners. Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) thereby contravened orders dated 21/7/2005 in Writ Petition No.2441/2005. In earlier judgment dated 7/2/2002 in Writ Petition No.3652/2002, subsequent notifications amending the basic notification dated 16/7/1981 were not pointed out. According to Petitioners communications dated 11/1/2005 & 12/1/2005 are issued only after considering basic notification dated 16/ 7/1981 and judgment dated 7/2/2002 and hence these two communications are bad-in-law. The point or question 3 in communication dated 11/ 1/2005 is stated to be wrongly framed because Government and Chief Conservator of Forest were never competent to grant licence and said power was with Respondent 3 Divisional Forest Officer. They further state that there could not be any interference with power to decide vested in Respondent 2 i.e. Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) by anybody else including State Government. Communications dated 11/1/2005, 12/1/2005 and 18/1/2005 are stated to be encroachment by superior authority on the jurisdiction of Respondent 2, and hence unconstitutional. Appellate power kept to itself by State Government is stated to be arbitrary and only a farce. They also claim that Government notification dated 16/7/1981 is found to be prospective only. Their Saw Mills existed and operated since prior to 16/7/1981 and there applications for licence were also much prior to 16/7/1981. Divisional Forest Officer was always the licensing authority and there is no enactment or rule or regulation requiring cancellation of licences issued to them. They also claim that Government notification dated 16/7/1981 is found to be prospective only. Their Saw Mills existed and operated since prior to 16/7/1981 and there applications for licence were also much prior to 16/7/1981. Divisional Forest Officer was always the licensing authority and there is no enactment or rule or regulation requiring cancellation of licences issued to them. They contend that distance criteria of 10 k.m. is applicable to new Saw Mill and in any case their Saw Mills are beyond 10 k.m. Remedy of appeal before State Government is stated to be an empty formality as issue is already prejudged by it. 5. It may be noted that after the above referred direction dated 16-7-1981, Saw Mills have approached this Court on several occasions & those developments as revealed from orders dt.21/7/2005 in Writ Petition No.2441/2005 & an earlier judgment dated 7/2/2002 in Writ Petition No.3652/2002 are important here. 6. In impugned orders, Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) has nowhere found that Saw Mills of Petitioners are located within 10 k.m. of any reserved or protected forest. Therefore that is not the dispute to be looked into by us. Petitioners also have not attempted to show that any other Saw Mill licensed after 16-7-1981 & located within 10 k.m. is still continuing. Respondent No.2 i.e. Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) has also found that there is recommendation of Chief Conservator of Forest in favour of Petitioners. The licences have been revoked only because of absence of prior no objection certificate of Forest Department. It is to be noted that said no objection certificate for an establishment of a Saw Mill is expected to be of a date prior to 16/7/1981. It is admitted position that as per law then prevailing there was no question of obtaining any such no objection certificate. At this stage, perusal of any impugned order (dated 22/5/2006-here) passed by Respondent 2 is essential. In the beginning observations and directions of this High Court dated 7/2/2002 in Writ Petition No.3652/2001 on Government notification dated 16/7/1981 on grant of licences, scrutiny & consideration of controversy in the light thereof by State Government and resultant directions as incorporated in letter dated 11/ 1/2005 are mentioned. In the beginning observations and directions of this High Court dated 7/2/2002 in Writ Petition No.3652/2001 on Government notification dated 16/7/1981 on grant of licences, scrutiny & consideration of controversy in the light thereof by State Government and resultant directions as incorporated in letter dated 11/ 1/2005 are mentioned. It is noted that as per those directions Saw Mills within 10 k.m. of reserved/protected forest to whom licences have been issued by State Government or Chief Conservator of Forest after 16/7/81 are to be shifted beyond 10 k.m. and their licences are not to be renewed unless they shift beyond 10 k.m.. The Respondent 2 also noted that licences issued after 16/7/1981 by officers other than the Government or Chief Conservator of Forest are to be revoked after following principles of natural justice. Right of appeal before Government to licence holders who do not agree with decision of Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) has also been noted. Earlier show cause notice dated 16/3/2005, reply dated 25/4/2005 and cancellation of those licences on 10/512005 has also been taken note of. In paragraph 4 of impugned order, the adjudication in Writ Petition No.2441/2005 vide judgment dated 21/7/2005 has been taken note of and then in paragraph 5 submission of case papers by Deputy Conservator of Forest i.e. earlier Divisional Forest Officer with his comments to Respondent 2 and hearing conducted on 1/3/2006 and 24/3/2006 finds mention. In paragraph 6 while mentioning the challenge, Respondent 2 also states that legality of letters dated 11/1/2005 & 12/1/2005 was also assai led. In paragraph 7, facts about remarks of Deputy Conservator of Forest that licences to the Saw Mill was given by the then Divisional Forest Officer, Nagpur as per authorization of the then Conservator of Forests and as it was by authority other than Government or Chief Conservator of Forest licence needed to be revoked and about concurrence with that remark by Chief Conservator of Forest (Territorial), Nagpur vide is letter dated 1/12/2005 appear. Then in paragraph 8, Respondent 2 mentions that scope of hearing before it was defined by letter dated 12/1/2005 and that letter required grant of hearing to such Saw Mill owners whose licence was issued after 16/7/1981 by officers other than Government or Chief Conservator of Forest. Said authority also points out that the decision was to be taken after such hearing. Said authority also points out that the decision was to be taken after such hearing. It also expressly states that submissions made by licence holder and the report submitted by Deputy Conservator of Forest was being examined by it "from this point of view only". It also adds that "The other facts mentioned by the Applicant or the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Nagpur are not being commented upon". 7. In paragraph 9 of impugned order, Respondent 2 finds that as per guidelines issued vide notification dated 16/7/1981 Divisional Forest Officer could not have issued a new licence except where a no objection certificate for establishment of a Saw Mill was given by the Forest Department prior to 16/7/1981. The additional requirement of prior approval of Chief Conservator of Forest and of fulfillment of three conditions is also mentioned in this paragraph. In paragraph 10 subsequent amendments are also taken note of. Respondent 2 has also mentioned clause 4 which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in said directions, Government, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, can approve grant of new licence by Divisional Forest Officer if it is satisfied that grant of licence is necessary to remove genuine and extreme hardship to the applicant and in public interest. In paragraph 11, modification brought about on 1/8/1982 are pointed out and then in paragraph 12, two situations must for approval to grant of new licence by Divisional Forest Officer are pointed out. It is found that Conservator of Forest could have granted approval where no objection certificate for establishment of a Saw Mill was given by Fares Department prior to 16/7/1981 and in other cases State Government or Chief Conservator of Forest could have given such approval. In paragraph 13, three questions viz.:- (i) When was the licences issued for the first time to applicant's Saw Mill ?, (ii) Who gave the approval to the Divisional Forest Officer to grant the said licence? & (iii) Whether any no objection certificate was given by the forest department for the establishment of said Saw Mill prior to 16/7/1981 ? are formulated. & (iii) Whether any no objection certificate was given by the forest department for the establishment of said Saw Mill prior to 16/7/1981 ? are formulated. Findings recorded by Respondent 2 in paragraph 14 reveal that :- (i) Saw Mill of applicant was granted licence for first-time in year 1982 i.e. after 16/7/1981, (ii) said licence was granted by the then Divisional Forest Officer, Nagpur as per approval given by the then Conservator of Forest, Nagpur Circle, & (ii) No "no objection certificate" was given by the forest department to establish said Saw Mill prior to 16/7/1981. In paragraph 15 conclusion reached is that neither State Government nor Chief Conservator of Forest has given approval for grant of that licence by Divisional Forest Officer as required by notification dated 16/7/1981 and hence that licence deserved to be revoked. Thus, the "no objection certificate" by department prior to 16/7/1981, approval either of State Government or Chief Conservator of Forest is found to be necessary. 8. Respondents have not pointed out to us any provision which contemplated no objection certificate of Forest Department prior to 16/7/1981. The requirement has been introduced for the first time on said date and still, surprisingly, such NOC is contemplated to be of the date prior to 16/7/1981. In view of this position, we had specifically questioned Adv. Badar - the learned counsel appearing for Forest Department whether first two conditions about purchase of machinery or investment and fulfillment of other formalities relating to licences were exhaustive or illustrative. The learned Counsel stated that said narration could not be exhaustive and has to be illustrative. In view of discretion available to State Government in clauses (3) and (4), we also find that these 2 conditions stipulate situations only by way of illustration and it is open to Competent Authority like Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) to apply its mind to facts presented to it to find out whether in sum and substance, the spirit behind the same is satisfied in each case. Clause (2) permits State Government/Chief Conservator of Forest to grant approval to licence issued by Divisional Forest Officer to provide facilities of Saw Mill in any area at least 25 k.m. away from boundary of reserved or protected Forest, if such area is not served by any Saw Mill or is served by only one Saw Mill. Clause (2) permits State Government/Chief Conservator of Forest to grant approval to licence issued by Divisional Forest Officer to provide facilities of Saw Mill in any area at least 25 k.m. away from boundary of reserved or protected Forest, if such area is not served by any Saw Mill or is served by only one Saw Mill. Clause (3) even permits them to save unlicensed Saw Mill actually in operation on 16/7/1981 in public interest after considering substantial investment in certain circumstances subject to condition Nos.2 and 3 of clause (1) of the directions. Clause (4) is the residuary power with these authorities to grant approval to such licece issued by Divisional Forest Officer to remove genuine and extreme hardship to the applicant or in public interest. Consideration of factors like genuine and extreme hardship to the applicant or then public interest, substantial investment, services rendered by unlicensed Saw Mill or then need for Saw Mill relevant for exercise of these powers by these authorities bring into picture varied facts & situations which need to be balanced with basic purpose of conservation of Forest. Those considerations cannot be avoided while weighing requirements of condition Nos.(1) and (2). The purchase of machinery without licence or then not possessing necessary industrial or municipal licence prior to 16/7/1981 may not by itself negate the incurring of financial liabilities or investment of substantial nature. A person may have applied for licence well within time and processing thereof may consume lot of time. In September and October. 1980, Petitioners applied to M.I.D.C. for grant of building permit and its executive engineer asked them to obtain licence for erecting a Saw Mill from Forest Department, M.I.D.C. sent a communication on 16/10/1980 to Divisional Forest Officer at Nagpur informing plot allotment to 11 Saw Mills and to expedite the licensing process. Petitioners before us are complaining that their requests were processed after 16 months. One of the Petitioners Shri. Nanji A. Patel in his reply dated 24/3/2006 filed before Respondent 2 disclosed 29/5/1980 as the date on which he applied for grant of land, 30/7/1980 as date on which he got SSI certificate, 16/9/1980 as date on which he applied to Divisional Forest Officer for Saw Mill licence along with necessary documents and 6/10/1980 as the date on which he applied to M.I.D.C. for building permit. He also pointed out communication dated 13/10/1980 sent by its Executive Engineer to Forest Department. As Respondent 2 has not evaluated relevance or importance of these events and has not recorded any finding in this respect, we also are not in position to observe anything finally on facts. Though Adv. Badar has attempted to show that some Saw Mills are within 10 k.m. radius and also tried to show other violations, in absence of any finding upon these matters by Respondent 2, we find it unnecessary to consider the same here for the first time. It only needs to be mentioned that if there was no requirement of any NOC of Forest Department prior to 16/7/1981, stipulation thereof in clause (1) of directions issued on 16/7/1981 is inconsequential and needs to be ignored. The second requirement of prior approval of Conservator of Forest is satisfied in these matters and hence, Respondent 2 has to find out whether spirit of sum and substance in stipulating condition 1 and 2 in said clause (1) are substantially complied with by Petitioners or not. There is no application of mind in impugned order on these lines. We reiterate that distance of 10 k.m. is not the relevant consideration before us as Forest Department has not raised that issue before Respondent 2. It is clear that Respondent 2 did not apply his mind to all these facts and aspects because of letters dated 11/112005 and 12/1/2005 which he construed as limitation on his powers. 9. Appellate channel or hierarchy prescribed by Rules is not in dispute before us. Guidelines issued in the shape of directions on 16/7/1981 cannot override the statutory scheme. Licensing authority or then licence revoking authority continues to be Divisional Forest Officer but that exercise has been only subjected to Superintendence, direction and control of State Government. We are not called upon to examine the implication or scope of this power assumed to itself by State Government by adding sub-rule (11)(a) in Rule 23 of Vidarbha Region Rules. No arguments are advanced to show to us the extent to which such directions issued for guidance erode powers of adjudication with statutory authorities in the matter. Original orders are still required to be passed by Divisional Forest Officer and then first appeal lies before Conservator of Forest and then second appeal is provided before Chief Conservator of Forest. No arguments are advanced to show to us the extent to which such directions issued for guidance erode powers of adjudication with statutory authorities in the matter. Original orders are still required to be passed by Divisional Forest Officer and then first appeal lies before Conservator of Forest and then second appeal is provided before Chief Conservator of Forest. Thereafter there is a provision for filing memorandum or revision before State Government. This statutory scheme has not been changed. One of the objections of Forest Department is about alternative remedy available to Petitioner i.e. of filing Appeal before State Government. It is because of Government letter dated 12/112005. It is also clear that this communication cannot effect change in statutory scheme. Such Appeal in order to constitute an alternate remedy must be provided for by amending relevant statutory provisions or Vidarbha Region Rules. It also appears that because of binding nature of directions issued to lower authorities as envisaged by State Government, such an appeal has been provided before itself by it. We find that in the circumstances Petitioners do not have any alternate & equally efficacious remedy and their Petitions are not barred. The letters or directions cannot encroach upon the discretion conferred by Rules upon any appellate authority and restrict its application of mind or attempt to cut the process of adjudication. Determination of facts relevant for exercise of such discretion or powers, ascertaining circumstances having bearing on exercise undertaken and an independent finding about the same are the basic requirements of any quasi-judicial proceedings. Legislature can only prescribe desired policy or law but then cannot curtail jurisdiction of authority entrusted with obligation of implementing it by following principles of natural justice. The guidelines or directions cannot encroach upon freedom of such authority to draw its own conclusions on facts found and then to apply said law or policy to it. In present facts, perusal of impugned order itself shows either absence of such power to adjudicate in Respondent 2 or then feeling of helplessness in it. The directions or guidelines cannot eclipse this independence of Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) i.e. Respondent 2. We find that in view of the undisturbed statutory scheme and acquiescence in it by parties, it is not necessary for us to quash said directions or guidelines. The directions or guidelines cannot eclipse this independence of Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) i.e. Respondent 2. We find that in view of the undisturbed statutory scheme and acquiescence in it by parties, it is not necessary for us to quash said directions or guidelines. Concerned authorities are free to exercise their quasi-judicial powers unhindered by the same but to further or implement the policy laid down therein within framework of law. Reliance upon following authorities by Adv. Sanyal has been helpful. In Jamaat-e-Islami Hind Vs. Union of India - 1995(1) SCC 428 -in para 21 Hon'ble Apex Court states that to satisfy the minimum requirement of a proper adjudication, tribunals should have the means to ascertain the credibility of conflicting evidence relating to points in controversy. Unless such means are available to the Tribunal. it cannot choose between conflicting material and decide on its acceptance of rejection. In absence of such means, only option to it to accept opinion of Government and adjudication ceases to be an objective determination. Requirement of adjudication by Tribunal contemplated by Act does not permit it to abdicate its function to Government and hence procedure to be followed by it must enable it to assess for itself the credibility of material produced before it. Discussion by Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1989 SC 997 State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh in para 24 shows that power of revoking or canceling the permission partakes quasi-judicial complexion and authority must bring to bear an unbiased mind, consider impartially the objections raised by the aggrieved party and decide the matter consistent with the principles of natural justice. The authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the direction of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion. It would then not be the Authority's discretion that is exercised, but someone else's. If an authority "hands over its discretion to another body it acts ultra vires". Such an interference by a person or body extraneous to the power would plainly be contrary to the nature of the power conferred upon the authority. Hon'ble Apex Court also notes that De Smith sums up the position thus :- "The relevant principles formulated by the Courts may be broadly summarized as follows. Such an interference by a person or body extraneous to the power would plainly be contrary to the nature of the power conferred upon the authority. Hon'ble Apex Court also notes that De Smith sums up the position thus :- "The relevant principles formulated by the Courts may be broadly summarized as follows. The authority in which a discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner. In general, a discretion must be exercised only by the authority to which it is committed. That authority must genuinely address itself to the matter before it: it must not act under the dictation of another body or disable itself from exercising a discretion in each individual case. In the purported exercise of its discretion it must not do what it has been forbidden to do, nor must it do what it has not been authorized to do. It must act in good faith, must have regard to all relevant considerations and must not be swayed by irrelevant considerations, must not seek to promote purposes alien to the letter or to the spirit of the legislation that gives it power to act, and must not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Nor where a judgment must be made that certain facts exist can a discretion be validly exercised on the basis of an erroneous assumption about those facts. These several principles can conveniently be grouped in two main categories: failure to exercise a discretion, and excess or abuse of discretionary power. The two classes are not, however, mutually exclusive". In Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji AIR 1952 SC 16 - in para 17, Hon'ble Apex Court finds that only person vested with authority to grant or refusal licence from eviction of a building to be used for purpose of public amusement is the Commissioner of Police. He has been vested with absolute discretion at any time to cancel or suspend any licence which has been granted under the Rules. But the power to do so is vested in him and not in the State Government and can only be exercised by him at his discretion. No other person authority can do it. AIR 1991 SC 1099 - U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ismail and Ors. relied upon by Adv. But the power to do so is vested in him and not in the State Government and can only be exercised by him at his discretion. No other person authority can do it. AIR 1991 SC 1099 - U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ismail and Ors. relied upon by Adv. Manohar is also relevant but it is appropriate to consider it little later. It is apparent that only modification or amendment to the Rules on 16/7/1981 by adding Clause (11)(a) brings exercise of powers conferred upon Divisional Forest Officer of revoking licence under Superintendence, direction and control of the State Government. He still remains competent authority for said purpose and amendment does not divest him of that power or substitute him in any way. Thus whatever directions State Government issues on them its Superintendence or control cannot take away his discretion and power to adjudicate in any way. Same will also hold good in relation to exercise of said power by Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) who has been empowered by letters dated 11/1/2005 or 12/1/2005. 10. Communication dated 11/1/2005 sent by Joint Secretary (Forest) to Principal Chief Conservator of Forest at Nagpur shows that after judgment of High Court dated 7/2/2002 in Writ Petition No.2652/2001, opinion of Law and Judiciary was sought. Accordingly learned Advocate General for State is reported to have given his opinion on three points as sought. Those points and opinion as incorporated in this communication read : Point 1 - Can the Saw Mills which came into existence after 1981, by way of new licences, given by either Chief Conservator of Forest or Government after relaxing the Rule under the powers vested by notification dated 19/8/1981 and 1/8/1982 be termed as having come in existence in contravention of Rules? -Opinion : - Yes. The observations of the Hon'ble High Court are that the Forest Department could not permit any Saw Mill on or after 16th July, 1981 within radius of 10 k.m. of the Reserved/protected Forest. Therefore the question of relaxation does not· arise. Point 2 - Whether these Saw Mills are eligible for protection under the modified order of the High Court dated 7/2/2002 or are required to be shifted beyond 10 k.m. from reserved Forest/protected Forest in accordance with the original order of Hon'ble High Court passed on 16/7/2001 ? Therefore the question of relaxation does not· arise. Point 2 - Whether these Saw Mills are eligible for protection under the modified order of the High Court dated 7/2/2002 or are required to be shifted beyond 10 k.m. from reserved Forest/protected Forest in accordance with the original order of Hon'ble High Court passed on 16/7/2001 ? - Opinion :- The question of permission does not arise. They would be required to be shifted as per the order dated 16th July, 1981. Point 3 - Whether all the licences issued by any authority after 1981 other than Government and Chief Conservator of Forest are liable to be revoked? - Opinion :- Yes. But after complying the principles of natural justice. Then in paragraph L there is a direction to shift Saw Mills located within 10 k.m. of reserved or protected Forests as per circular dated 19/8/1981 and 1/8/1982 and licensed by Government or Chief Conservator of Forest after 16/7/1981 beyond 10 k.m. of such Forest boundary. In paragraph 2 there is direction not to renew licences of such Saw Mills till they shift beyond 10 k.m. The licences issued by officers other than Government or Chief Conservator after 16/7/1981 should be cancelled but then before that compliance with principles of natural justice is essential. Perusal of communication dated 12/1/2005 shows that in paragraph 3 adherence to principles of natural justice before revocation of licence by hearing such licence holders is stated to be essential. Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection), Maharashtra State, Nagpur is directed to hear such Saw Mill licence holders and take the decision. In last sentence it is observed that Saw Mill licence holders not agreeing with said decision of Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) should appeal to State Government. 11. Point 1 and opinion on it shows that it relates to relaxation of requirements of Rule. Respondent 2 has nowhere found that any Rule was relaxed for Petitioners and he has also not recorded the finding that their Saw Mills are within 10 k.m. radius of any reserved protected Forest. However by way of abundant precaution we inquired from Adv. Point 1 and opinion on it shows that it relates to relaxation of requirements of Rule. Respondent 2 has nowhere found that any Rule was relaxed for Petitioners and he has also not recorded the finding that their Saw Mills are within 10 k.m. radius of any reserved protected Forest. However by way of abundant precaution we inquired from Adv. Badar about the case of Department in this respect and gave him an adjournment also to point out such instance of relaxation or of Saw Mills being located within 10 k.m., Though from records he could not make out any such case, he produced a Xerox Copy of communication dated 10/3/2003 to show that these Saw Mills are within 10 k.m. Adv. Sanyal for Petitioners has pointed out to us that copy of said communication is already annexed with Writ Petition as Annexure-II. Said copy produced by Petitioners shows location of all Saw Mills beyond 10 k.m., Thus the document itself appeal, to be in dispute and hence, for the first time in these petitions, no finding in this respect can be reached. Though show cause notice in W.P. 5945/2007 alleges that said Saw Mill is within radius of 10 k.m., as pointed out by learned Advocate Marpakwar, there is no finding in this respect either in original order or in Appellate order. At this juncture judgment of this Court dated 7/2/2002 in Writ Petition 3652/2001 and connected matters needs to be looked into. From paragraph 2 it is apparent that directions issued on 16/7/198 I and shifting of Saw Mills beyond 10 k.m. of reserved/protected Forest was the issue involved therein. In paragraph 3 filing of earlier Writ Petition 3937 of 1998 and challenge therein to order dated 13/1/1998 asking that Petitioner to shift his Saw Mill beyond 10 k.m. is noticed by said Division Bench. After said Writ Petition 3937 of 1998 was admitted and some interim orders were passed on 2/5/2000. Writ Petition 11 of 1999 came to be filed for quashing similar notices issued in 1998. Division Bench fund that prayers in this 1999 petition and 1998 Petition are almost identical. Writ Petition 11 of 1999 came to be disposed of as withdrawn along with several other matters as this Court found that question of distance need not be considered in writ jurisdiction. In paragraph 4 of judgment. Division Bench fund that prayers in this 1999 petition and 1998 Petition are almost identical. Writ Petition 11 of 1999 came to be disposed of as withdrawn along with several other matters as this Court found that question of distance need not be considered in writ jurisdiction. In paragraph 4 of judgment. Division Bench notices Writ Petition 4017 of 1999 and prayers made therein. Prayer (i) required Forest Department to measure the exact distance of Saw Mill of Petitioners from reserved forest afresh and by prayer (ii) Petitioners sought declaration that till the rules are uniformly applied throughout State their Saw Mills should not be shifted. This petition was decided on 7/12/2000. Petitioner therein filed Writ Petition 2006/2001 seeking relaxation of condition of 10 k.m. and also claiming renewal till all Saw Mill owners were required to shift beyond 10 k.m.. It was dismissed on 16th July, 2001 as relaxation could not have been granted after noticing orders dated 2/5/2000. Writ Petition 3937 of 1998 was dismissed on 19th July, 2001 just three days thereafter by same Division Bench by reasoned judgment but then without reference to order dated 16th July. 2001. This dismissal of Writ Petition 3937/1998 put an end to order dated 2/5/2000 relying on which directions were issued on 16/7/2001 by very same Bench for implementation of directives dated 16/7/1981 even in relation to Saw Mills existing prior to date of its issue. Notices issued by Government of Maharashtra in obedience to orders dated 16/7/2001 in Writ Petition 2006/2001 were then questioned in the writ petition 3652/2001 and 80 connected matters. These facts emerging from first 7 paragraphs of judgment dated 7/2/2002 also show observation of Division Bench that dispute regarding interpretation of Govt. directives dated 16/7/1981 was never raised in any of the earlier matters. Learned Advocate General had then categorised Saw Mills into 4 categories. First category included Saw Mills started prior to 16/ 7/1981 and running at same place. 2nd category comprised of Saw Mills in existence prior to 16/7/1981 but relocated within 10 k.m. radius of protected or reserved forest. Third category included Saw Mills established within 10 k.m. after 16/7/1981 by way of relocation and. 4th or last category was of Saw Mills established within 10 k.m. after 16/7/1981. Learned Advocate General there had stated that notification issued on 16/7/1981 was not applicable to Saw Mills established prior to that date. Third category included Saw Mills established within 10 k.m. after 16/7/1981 by way of relocation and. 4th or last category was of Saw Mills established within 10 k.m. after 16/7/1981. Learned Advocate General there had stated that notification issued on 16/7/1981 was not applicable to Saw Mills established prior to that date. Division Bench then proceeded to examine the orders dated 26/8/1999. 2/5/2000, 7/12/2000. 16/7/2001 and 19/7/2001 passed earlier in various matters. In paragraph 16, Division Bench found it just to dispose of all writ petitions by issuing VII directions. It quashed all show cause notices issued in obedience to interim orders of High Court, declared notification dated 16/7/1981 to be prospective, Government was permitted to amend the said notification as sought for in paragraph 9 and paragraph 10 of its written submissions, question of shifting of Saw Mills within 10 k.m. after 16/7/1981 by Saw Mills having valid licence since prior to 16/7/1981 was left open for decision by State Government after following principles of natural justice. All contentions raised and not specifically dealt with by it were left open for consideration. This judgment therefore shows that question as to location or exact distance of Saw Mills of concerned petitioners was not required to be looked into and is therefore open for consideration. From this judgment dated 7/2/2002, it is clear that issue of distance or issue of existence of Saw Mill within radius of 10 k.m. of reserved or protected Forest is apparently the bone of contention between parties. But then perusal of impugned order dated 22/5/2006 passed by Respondent 2 shows the absence of NOC by forest Department granted prior to 16/7/1981 as the only violation. Records show that document dated 10/3/2003 to show location of Saw Mills beyond radius of 10 k.m. was also supplied to Respondent No.2 i.e. Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection). In view of this position and absence of any express finding by Respondent 2 in this respect, it is clear that there is failure to exercise jurisdiction on its part. 12, Implication of prospective effect given to directions dated 16/7/1981 now needs to be looked into. For this orders of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 4/3/1997 assume importance and with it the judgment of this Court dated 7/2/2002 in Writ Petition 3652/2001 and connected matters needs to be looked into. 12, Implication of prospective effect given to directions dated 16/7/1981 now needs to be looked into. For this orders of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 4/3/1997 assume importance and with it the judgment of this Court dated 7/2/2002 in Writ Petition 3652/2001 and connected matters needs to be looked into. Before us validity of decision by State Government to shift Saw Mills established within radius of 10 k.m. from reserved/ protected Forest after 16/7/1981 has not been questioned. On the contrary arguments are advanced to show that said decision is not applicable to the Saw Mills of Petitioners as they had taken substantial steps well before 16/7/1981 & hence, their Saw Mills were already in existence and are beyond 10 k.m., We do not find any thing in judgment of Division Bench dated 7/2/2002 to suggest that 4 categories mentioned therein also included all unlicensed Saw Mills actually in operation. Words used in any judgment and here particularly in paragraph 16 of judgment dated 7/2/2002 cannot be construed to support or uphold a course of action contrary to law. Such conclusion cannot be reached through inferential or interpretative measures and it must be expressly stated in the judgment. Learned Advocate General also has not made any statement showing desire of State Government to protect all unlicensed Saw Mills. Decision to give such protection as one time measure to unlicensed Saw Mill actually in operation on 16/7/1981 was apparently taken in public interest. We are not called upon to examine validity of this exercise. This protection was added by amendment on 19/8/ 1991 by adding clause (3) to directions dated 16/7/1981. Mandatory condition of applying for license before 30/9/1981 i.e. within short time was imposed on it to avoid any manipulations. In any case, in view of these observations :- "4. All unlicensed Saw Mills, veneer and ply-wood industries in the State of Maharashtra and the State of Uttar Pradesh are to be closed forthwith and the State Government would not remove or relax the condition for grant of permission/licence for the opening of any such Saw Mill, veneer and plywood industry and it shall also not grant any fresh permission/licence for this purpose. The Chief Secretary of the State will ensure strict compliance of this direction and file a compliance report within two weeks" of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 1997 SC 1233 - "T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. The Chief Secretary of the State will ensure strict compliance of this direction and file a compliance report within two weeks" of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 1997 SC 1233 - "T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India" i.e. in Writ Petitions (C) Nos.202 of 1995 with 171 and 897 of 1996 and LA. Nos.6-14. 1 and 3-4 of 1996 in Civil Appeals Nos.357-75 and 2457 of 1977 and 1344-45 of 1976, D/- 4-3-1997; no unlicensed Saw Mill can be allowed or regularized. Use of word "existing licences or licences which were in existence" in paragraph 16(iv) by Division Bench of this Court has no impact on words "established" used in its paragraph 16(ii). If this Court wanted to cover even illegal or unlicensed Saw Mills in said sub-para (ii), it would not have mentioned only "ex" or "present" licence holder Saw Mills in sub-para (iv). Decision taken on 16/7/1981 is for Conservation of Forest and hence, intention to protect or continue Saw Mills whose existence was legally unknown cannot be read into it and has not been read into it. By subsequent amendment dated 19/8/1981 by adding clause (3) a limited protection has been given to such illegal Saw Mills provided they were actually in operation on 16/7/1981. It is policy decision operating subject to fulfillment of certain conditions and judgment dated 7/2/2002 has not in any way modified that policy decision. Unlicensed Saw Mills even if actually in operation but not protected by clause (3) or (4) of directives dated 16/7/1981 do not get any protection from this judgment dated 7/2/2002. 13. After 16/7/1981 petitions have been filed in 1998 before this Court on one count or the other and parties agreed to the procedure & modalities suggested by those guidelines in the matter of determination of their rights and liabilities. Division Bench of this Court decided Writ Petition 2439/2005. 2440. 2441, 2447, 3094 and 3098/2005 on 21/7/2005. Challenge therein was to common order dated 10/5/2005 passed by Deputy Conservator of Forest (Divisional Forest Officer) canceling the licences and though various contentions were raised by parties, said Division Bench decided the controversy only on competency of Deputy Conservator of Forest to take such decision. 2440. 2441, 2447, 3094 and 3098/2005 on 21/7/2005. Challenge therein was to common order dated 10/5/2005 passed by Deputy Conservator of Forest (Divisional Forest Officer) canceling the licences and though various contentions were raised by parties, said Division Bench decided the controversy only on competency of Deputy Conservator of Forest to take such decision. Letters dated 11/ 1/2005 & 12/1/2005 are grounds there to find that Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) at Nagpur was authorized to take decision after hearing such Saw Mill owners and aggrieved Saw Mill owners were expected to file appeal before Government against his decision. Thus licences were then found to be cancelled by an authority not having jurisdiction to do it in terms of these letters and hence those orders were quashed on 21/7/2005. Chief Conservator of a Forest (Protection) was directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing Petitioners. The revoked licences were restored and order to be passed by Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection), if adverse to Petitioners was directed not to be implemented for period of four weeks so as to enable Petitioner to prefer an appeal to State. The Petitioners thereafter have acquiesced in this judgment dated 21/7/2005 and accordingly participated in hearing before Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) and some of them have also filed further Appeals before State Government. There is no challenge to distance criterion as laid down or also to necessitate of shifting a Saw Mill established after 16/7/1981 within radius of 10 k.m. of reserved protected Forest. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to disturb or interfere in any way with the scheme of said directive dated 16/7/1981 at the Petitioners' instance that too after almost 28 years of its issue. Special procedure then devised by State Government to meet with exigencies more effectively is being followed and looking to the purpose for which such procedure has been evolved, it would be against public interest to interfere with it in any manner at this stage. In AIR 1991 SC 1099 - V.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ismail and Ors., relied upon by Adv. Manohar, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the court cannot dictate the decision of statutory authority that ought to be made in exercise of discretion in a given case. In AIR 1991 SC 1099 - V.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ismail and Ors., relied upon by Adv. Manohar, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the court cannot dictate the decision of statutory authority that ought to be made in exercise of discretion in a given case. It has been laid down that Court cannot direct the statutory authority to exercise its discretion in particular manner not expressly required by law. The statutory discretion cannot be fettered even by self-created rules or policy and two circulars issued by Managing Director were found leaving no scope for exercising discretion to consider individual cases of retrenched drivers for any alternative job. Though norms or rules to regulate exercise of such discretion can be laid down, exercise of statutory discretion cannot be denied or dispensed with thereby. Hon'ble Apex Court has stated that concerned authority of Road Transport Corporation therefore was under obligation to consider the cases of retrenched drivers for alternative jobs notwithstanding said circulars. Hence, we declare that Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) has to apply his mind independently to the facts presented before him and record findings on all the relevant circumstances having bearing on the controversy un-influenced by letters dated 11/1/2005 and 12/1/2005. Those letters are only in the shape of legal advice to a client and an authority expected to discharge quasi-judicial function is not supposed to be influenced in exercise of that obligation by it. The said communication does not in any way eclipse that obligation or encroach upon it to the prejudice of Petitioners. Impression of said authority that scope of hearing before it is either "defined" or pre-determined is erroneous. These letters or circular dated 26/10/1981 or any other similar instrument are only for guidance of these authorities and do not prohibit them from considering all factual or legal material surrounding the controversy and necessary for its determination. The Petitioners are not seeking quashing of clause (3) of directions dated 16/7/1981 giving some advantage or protection to unlicensed Saw Mills actually in operation on said day but they attempted to rely upon it to show that they are being victimized. As facts in relation to said claim of Petitioners are yet to be crystallized, we find said challenge or claim for treatment at par misconceived at this stage and hence, it is unnecessary to examine it on merits. As facts in relation to said claim of Petitioners are yet to be crystallized, we find said challenge or claim for treatment at par misconceived at this stage and hence, it is unnecessary to examine it on merits. Respondent 2 - Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) has to ignore requirement of Forest Department's NOC of a date prior to 16/7/1981 and independently apply his mind to the show cause notice issued to respective Petitioners in the light of binding judicial precedents holding the field & spirit of directives. He has to consider their replies to it and assess for himself whether the Saw Mills can be viewed as established before or after 16/7/1981, judge there for the relevance of steps taken or formalities completed or investments made and then whether the same satisfy the distance norm of 10 k.m., It has to find out whether license granted to them after 16/7/ 1981 is in accordance with 16/7/1981 directives or not. 14. Order dated 18/6/2007 impugned in W.P. No.5945/2007 brings on record the fact that as per Government decision dated 27/4/2007, for bringing consistency in Government policy and Rules regarding Saw Mills, a Committee has been constituted by State Government and said Committee was to consider various orders passed by Hon 'ble Apex Court and High Court as also Rules to achieve such uniformity and consistency. Though period of more than two years has expired thereafter, no definite statement in this respect has come on record till today. The order dated 18/6/2007 passed by State Government and the order of Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) impugned before State Government are unsustainable. Thus said order dated 18/612007 along with orders dated 22/5/2006 in W.P. No.2884/2006. dated 24/5/2006 in W.P. No.3041/2006, dated 26/5/2006 in W.P. No.3040/2006. dated 30/5/ 2006 in W.P. No.2288/2007, W.P. No.5402/ 2007, W.P. No.465812006, dated 31/5/2006 in W.P. No.3739/2006, dated 1/6/2006 in W.P. No.4657/2006, dated 30/6/2006 in W.P. No.4283/2006, W.P. No.5945/2007, dated 18/ 8/2006 in W.P. No. 1349/2007 and dated 16/9/2006 in W.P. No.5312/2006 passed by Respondent Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) in respective matters and impugned therein are all quashed & set aside. Relief of quashing of communications dated 11/1/2005 and 12/1/2005 being unwarranted and misconceived, is rejected. Directions in notification dated 16/7/1981 are legal & valid. The same deserve no interference in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court at the instance of Petitioners. Relief of quashing of communications dated 11/1/2005 and 12/1/2005 being unwarranted and misconceived, is rejected. Directions in notification dated 16/7/1981 are legal & valid. The same deserve no interference in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court at the instance of Petitioners. All Writ Petitions are thus partly allowed. Matters are restored back to the file of the Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) for taking fresh decision in accordance with law after giving respective Petitioners an opportunity of hearing. As the matters are old and considering the issue involved, the Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) shall decide the same as early as possible & in any case by 31st January, 2010. The Petitioners shall appear before Respondent No.2 on 23-11-2009 and shall abide by his further directions in the matter. He shall not postpone the consideration to await any policy decision of State Government. Cautious approach of Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of such claims in apparent from its order dated 14-07 -2003 on IA-887 in case of 64 Saw Mills claiming licence as per this Notification dated 16-07-1981. Whether the Petitioners Saw Mill are or are not included in list of 64 Saw Mills claiming to be actually eligible for grant of licence as per notification dated 16/7/1981 which Hon'ble Apex Court directed State Government to examine, as if found eligible, their applications were directed by it to be sent to CEC which in turn was directed to submit a report to Supreme Court, we direct that the orders passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection) shall be communicated to CEC for placing before Hon'ble Apex Court in terms of its directions dated 14/3/2003. Rule is made absolute accordingly in all these Writ Petitions, however, without any order as to costs. Petitions allowed.