JUDGMENT Sanjay Dwivedi, J. - The Counsel for the petitioners submits that in connected petition i.e. M.Cr.C. No.27497/2020, this Court has issued notices to the respondents and also granted interim protection. Therefore, she is claiming parity to grant interim protection in M.Cr.C. No.28818/2020 also. 2. However, Shri Tiwari, appearing for the respondent/State submits that instead of issuing notice to the respondents/State it is appropriate that these petitions may be disposed of directing the authority to consider the petitioners' pending applications for renewal of licence and they be granted liberty to pass appropriate order. 3. Considering the aforesaid, as the prayer made by the counsel for the State appears to be justified, I am inclined to dispose of these petitions with a direction to the authority to consider the pending applications of the petitioners for renewal of licence and pass an appropriate order thereon. 4. However, it is made clear that the interim protection granted to the petitioner in M.Cr.C. No.24797/2020 allowing him to operate saw-mill shall be continued till the decision is taken by the authority on his pending application. 5. It is further made clear that if the applications of the petitioners are rejected, then they may be given further 15 days time to operate saw-mill so that they may approach the appropriate authority to challenge the order passed by the authority on their applications for renewal of licence. 6. It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The authority is free to consider and pass appropriate order on the pending applications of the petitioners for renewal of licence in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of. 8. Certified copy as per rules.