JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 908 dated 21.03.2020 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner’s saw mill license earlier cancelled by the respondent No.4 vide order as contained in letter No. 2007 dated 01.09.1999 has been held proper as per the provisions of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1990’]. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 16.07.2001 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner’s appeal being Appeal Case No. 03/2001 preferred against the order of revocation of its saw mill license was dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing letter No. 2007 dated 01.09.1999 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.4 whereby the saw mill license granted to the petitioner was revoked in terms with Section 7 of the Act, 1990 on the ground that in course of raid, illegal forest produce were recovered from the petitioner’s saw mill premises and it was found violating the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, 1990 as well as the security amount deposited by it was also forfeited. The petitioner has finally prayed for directing the respondent authorities to restore/renew license of its saw mill situated at Haldi Pokhar, P.S-Kuwali, District-East Singhbhum. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. 3. The petitioner’s saw mill license was revoked by the respondent No.4 vide the order as contained in letter No. 2007 dated 01.09.1999 on the ground that during raid in the saw mill premises, various illegal forest produce were recovered. The petitioner thereafter challenged the said order of revocation of its saw mill license by preferring an appeal being Appeal Case No. 03/2001 before the respondent No.2 which was dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2001. The petitioner subsequently filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5274/2001 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2003. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred L.P.A. No. 346/2003 and learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.08.2004, dismissed the said L.P.A affirming the order dated 27.03.2003 passed by learned Single Judge. The petitioner subsequently filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5274/2001 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2003. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred L.P.A. No. 346/2003 and learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.08.2004, dismissed the said L.P.A affirming the order dated 27.03.2003 passed by learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 10207/2005 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits vide order dated 14.11.2005. 4. In the meantime, a criminal complaint being C/3 Case No. 24/1999 was also instituted against Nazrul Hoda and Nurul Hoda (the proprietors of the petitioner-company) under Sections 26/33/41/42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. However, the aforesaid proprietors of the petitioner-company were acquitted in the said complaint case vide judgment dated 05.06.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the respondent No.4 for recalling the order dated 01.09.1999 as late as on 09.05.2017 as well as for restoration of its saw mill license. When no decision was taken by the respondent No.4 in this regard, the petitioner preferred another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 7364/2017 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 31.07.2018 directing the respondent No.4 to take appropriate decision on the petitioner’s application dated 09.05.2017 in accordance with law. However, the respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 21.03.2020, has declined to restore the petitioner’s saw mill license observing that the same was earlier cancelled after following the due process as provided under the Act, 1990. 5. Considering the aforesaid litigation history of the present case, it would be evident that the revocation of the petitioner’s saw mill license vide order dated 01.09.1999 was tested up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the petitioner, while seeking restoration/renewal of saw mill license, has made out a ground of acquittal of its proprietors in the aforesaid complaint case. 5. Considering the aforesaid litigation history of the present case, it would be evident that the revocation of the petitioner’s saw mill license vide order dated 01.09.1999 was tested up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the petitioner, while seeking restoration/renewal of saw mill license, has made out a ground of acquittal of its proprietors in the aforesaid complaint case. It is undisputed fact that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was passed on 14.11.2005 i.e. after passing the judgment of the acquittal of the aforesaid proprietors of the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur dated 05.06.2003 whereas it made an application before the respondent No.4 for recalling the order of revocation of its saw mill license as late as on 09.05.2017 i.e. after lapse of about 14 years. The petitioner has also not showed any law so as to contend that such revocation of saw mill license is dependant upon the outcome of criminal complaint. Moreover, learned Single Judge as well as learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.03.2003 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5274/2001 and order dated 18.08.2004 passed in L.P.A. No. 346/2003, on appreciation of issue involved in the matter, made observation that the appellate authority while disposing of Appeal Case No. 03/2021 had held that no legal documents were produced by the petitioner either at the time of seizure of huge quantity of unaccounted timber or at the time of hearing of the said appeal so as to satisfy the appellate authority about the legality of the seized timber. The saw mill license which was revoked in the year 1999, cannot be ordered to be renewed/restored in the year 2023, particularly, when the law relating to issuance of saw mill license has seen a sea change over the years. 6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case so as to warrant interference with the impugned order as contained in memo No. 908 dated 21.03.2020 passed by the respondent No.3, order dated 16.07.2001 passed by the respondent No.2 and order as contained in letter No. 2007 dated 01.09.1999 issued by the respondent No.4. 7. The present writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.