Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 404 (PAT)

Ram Khelawan Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2009-03-17

S.P.SINGH

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the seizure list dated 20.3.2005 contained in Annexure-1 and also for direction to the respondents to re-install the saw mill and further direction to respondent no. 3, the Conservator of Forest, Forest Division, Purnea to decide his appeal expeditiously. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 8 of the Bihar Saw Mill Regulation Act, 1990 (in short the Act) authorizes licensing officer or any person authorized by him to make search and seizure. He submits that Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) has been designated as licensing officer for the purpose of Section 8 of the Act. The aforesaid fact would be also evidence from Annexure-E to the suppl counter affidavit filed by the State. The Government issued directions that a licensing officer while exercising its power under Section 8 of the Act would not authorize any one below the rank of Ranger to make search and seizure. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by the State Counsel. 4. Learned counsel submits that DFO, Begusarai vide his office order dated 13.3.2004 authorized Ranger to conduct seizure, he submits that the aforesaid order was issued not in capacity as licensing officer but DFO, Begusarai. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that Annexure-F is in order as the Forest Department, Govt. of Bihar by notification dated 25.8.1993 published in Bihar Gazette has notified the DFO as licensing officer. In the aforesaid capacity as licensing officer, DFO, Begusarai by his order dated 17.3.2004 under Section 8 of the Act authorized Range Officer and further to make search and seizure. It is not in dispute that the case is at the stage of evidence. It would be open to the petitioner to take aforesaid point during the trial of the case. 6. So far as other reliefs of the petitioner i.e. appeal pending before respondent no. 3 is concerned, the prayer seems justified. It appears that petitioner against an order canceling his license has filed an appeal before respondent no. 3, who vide his order dated 30.11.2003 remanded the matter to the licensing officer to pass appropriate order after hearing both parties. He, however, submits that respondent no. 3 ordered that the saw mill shall remain closed till further orders purportedly on the ground that license was granted to the petitioner after 12.12.1996. 3, who vide his order dated 30.11.2003 remanded the matter to the licensing officer to pass appropriate order after hearing both parties. He, however, submits that respondent no. 3 ordered that the saw mill shall remain closed till further orders purportedly on the ground that license was granted to the petitioner after 12.12.1996. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of one Ram Sevak Sharma was more or less similar to that of the petitioner, as in his case also, license was granted under the Act after 12.12.199-6. The aforesaid Ram Sevak Sharma also filed an appeal against cancellation of license before respondent no. 3, who by his order observed that till final adjudication, the petitioner would be able to operate his saw mill provisionally. 7. After hearing the parties, this Court directs respondent no. 3 to dispose of appeal of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It would be open to the petitioner to place Annexure-4 as well as the report of Central Empowernment Committee before the Appellate Authority for his perusal. 8. With the aforesaid observations this writ petition is disposed of.