Order Heard the parties and with their consent this petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. 2. The petitioner's case is that her father-in-law late Jamini Kant Mandal was an employee of the Central Government and he, after his retirement, applied for license under Bihar Saw Mills Regulation Act, 1990 for running a business of Saw Mill, which was granted to him in the year 1994. Her father-in-law was running the Saw' Mill and after his death the said license was transferred and a fresh license was issued in the name of the petitioner, who was carrying out Saw Mill business in the name of M/s Kalyan Timber Traders at Baliapur in the District of Dhanbad under License No.DH/29/2003. Further, according to her, while her application for renewal of her Saw Mill license was pending, she received a notice dated 11.1.2006 issued by the D.F.O.-cum-Licensing Authority to show cause as to why her Saw Mill license be not cancelled in view of the provisions of Section 75 of the Indian Forest Act on the ground that her husband is a permanent employee of the Forest Department and, therefore, she being his relative cannot be allowed to do trade or business in Timber or any other forest produce. 3. The petitioner filed a show cause but the D.F.O., vide his order dated 17.3.2006 (Annexure-1) cancelled her license and communicated his order to the petitioner. Against the said order of cancellation by the D.F.O., the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 12 of the Bihar Saw Mills Regulation Act, 1990 before the Conservator of Forest-cum-Appellate Authority, Bokaro Circle. The said appeal was also dismissed by order dated 9.12.2006 contained in Annexure-2 to this writ petition. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed one Misc. Case under Section 13 (iv) of Bihar Saw Mills Regulation Act, 1990 before the District Judge, Dhanbad, which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 4/2007. The matter was heard by the Additional District Judge, FTC-IV, Dhanbad, who, vide his order dated 10.11.2009, contained in Annexure-3, dismissed the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the three orders passed by the D.F.O., the Conservator of Forest-cum-Appellate Authority and the order passed by the Additional District Judge, FTC-IV, Dhanbad, i.e. the orders contained in Annexure-1, 2 and 3 respectively. 6. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondent nos. 5. The petitioner has challenged the three orders passed by the D.F.O., the Conservator of Forest-cum-Appellate Authority and the order passed by the Additional District Judge, FTC-IV, Dhanbad, i.e. the orders contained in Annexure-1, 2 and 3 respectively. 6. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondent nos. 2 and 3 as well as the Additional District Judge, have wrongly dismissed her case without appreciating the provisions of Section 75 of the Indian Forest Act. He submitted that the petitioner cannot be victimized on account that her husband is employed as a clerk in the Forest Department and, therefore, she being his wife cannot run the business of Saw Mills. According to the learned counsel, Section 75 of the Indian Forest Act does not restrict any of the relative of a Forest Officer/employee from doing the lawful business of running Saw Mills. According to Mr. Tewari, Section 75 of the Indian Forest Act only prohibits a Forest" Officer or a forest employee from doing any business in respect of Timber or forest produce, whereas the petitioner is• neither a Forest Officer nor she is employed in the Forest Department. She has not violated any of the terms and conditions of the license granted to her under Bihar Saw Mills Regulation Act, 1990 and, therefore, her license for running Saw Mills could not have been cancelled. Further according to the petitioner, she acquired the business through inheritance from her father-in-law and, therefore, Rule-19(ii) and (iii) of Bihar Government Service Conduct Rules is not attracted in her case. 7. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and stated that the petitioner is none other than the wife of Sriniwas Mandal, who is an employee of the Forest Department and she was carrying on the Saw Mills business in the name of M/s Kalyan Timber Traders at Baliapur, Dhanbad. As per Section 75 of the Indian Forest Act, an employee of Forest Department cannot do any trade or business in timber or other forest produce as principal or as agent without written permission of the State Government. The petitioner being the wife of a forest employee was carrying out the Saw Mills business in contravention of Section 75 of the Indian Forest Act. In fact she is not entitled to run Saw Mills as provided under Section 75 of the Indian Forest Act. 8. The petitioner being the wife of a forest employee was carrying out the Saw Mills business in contravention of Section 75 of the Indian Forest Act. In fact she is not entitled to run Saw Mills as provided under Section 75 of the Indian Forest Act. 8. Section 75 of the Indian Forest Act read as under:- 75. Forest Officers not to trade.- Except with the permission in writing of the State Government, no Forest Officer shall, as Principal or agent, trade in timber or other forest produce, or be or become interested in any lease of any forest or in any contract for working any forest, whether in or outside [the territories to which this Act extends]." From bare perusal of Section 75 quoted hereinabove, it appears that it restricts a Forest Officer from doing trade in timber or other forest produce as principal or agent. The Forest Officer has been defined under Section 2(2) of the Indian Forest Act, which reads as under:- "2(2) "Forest Officer" means any person whom the State Government or any officer empowered by the State Government in this behalf, may appoint to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act or to do anything required by this Act or any rule made thereunder to be done by a Forest officer." 9. The basic principle of interpretation of an statute is that when the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e. they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. It is not permissible to read words in statute, which are not there. 10. From a plain reading of Section 75 as well as Section 2(2) of the Forest Act, quoted hereinabove, it appears that such permission of the State Government is required for any officer or employee of the Forest Department for doing trade in timber or other forest produce. In the present case since the petitioner is neither a Forest Officer nor an employee of the Forest Department and, therefore, such permission as envisaged under Section 75 of the Forest Act was not required for her. Only because the husband of the petitioner is employed as an Assistant/Clerk in the Forest Department, she cannot be denied the license to do trade in timber or other forest produce. Only because the husband of the petitioner is employed as an Assistant/Clerk in the Forest Department, she cannot be denied the license to do trade in timber or other forest produce. The petitioner was in fact granted license by the competent authority to run the business of Saw Mills which earlier stood in the name of her father-in-law. The restrictions if any mentioned in Section 75 of the Indian Forest Act cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. From the language of Section 75 of the Act it does not appear that the intention of the legislature was to restrain any of the relative of the forest employee/forest officer from doing trade in Timber or other forest produce. Therefore, Section 75 cannot be interpreted in the manner so as to make it applicable in the case of any of the relative of the Forest Officer or any of the relative of the employee of the Forest Department. It clearly applies only to a Forest Officer or to a forest employee and not to any of their relatives. 11. I also do not find any provision under Bihar Saw Mills Regulation Act, 1990 which restricts any relative of the forest employee or forest officer from doing business of saw mills. Further the provisions of Bihar Government Service Conduct Rules is also not applicable to the petitioner as she is not a Government Servant. This Conduct Rules may apply to her husband who is a Government servant. 12. From the impugned orders, I find that only because the petitioner is a close relative, i.e. the wife of a forest employee and, as such, on that ground alone her license for running saw mills was cancelled and her application for renewal of the license for the same has been rejected, which, in my view, is wholly illegal and unsustainable in law. 13. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The impugned orders as contained in Annexures-1, 2 and 3 respectively passed by the D.F.O., the Conservator of Forest-cum-Appellate Authority and the order passed by the Additional District Judge, FTC-IV, Dhanbad, are hereby quashed. Consequently, the respondents are directed to consider the application for renewal of license of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and shall pass an order in that regard within a period of four weeks with due intimation to the petitioner.