1. As in all these writ petitions the question involved is common, they have been heard for final disposal by a common order.

2. In all these writ petitions the petitioners are aggrieved either by rejection of their applications for renewal of licence; cancellation of licence to run saw mills granted under the provisions of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); or denial of consideration of their cases for renewal/grant of licences for running saw mills, though they claimed to have submitted applications and in some cases also deposited the requisite fees.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they have established saw mills which are their source of livelihood outside the forest area, yet the licensing authorities have arbitrarily denied grant of licence under the Act to run the saw mills either by refusal of renewal; cancellation of licence or by their non-disposal of the applications for renewal/grant of licence. It is to be noted here that earlier there was no requirement of taking licence for running saw mills. However, in the year 1990, for the first time, the saw mill owners were required to have licence to run the saw mills from Forest Offices under the provisions of the Act and the petitioners accordingly applied for renewal/grant of licence.

4. In C.W.J.C. Nos. 9295 and 9461 of 2000, the petitioners are aggrieved by the suspension of the licence of saw mill granted to them, vide orders dated 29-12-1999 and 28-12-1999 respectively, pending enquiry on the grounds that the relevant documents with respect to licence of saw mill was not verified by the Forest Conservator, Forest Extension Division, Muzaffarpur and that the original licence was not certified by the officer concerned.

5. In all these writ petitions the common question involved is as to whether the general directions dated 12-12-1996 and 4-3-1997 issued by the Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad V/s. Union of India, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1228 and AIR 1997 SC 1233 respectively in a case relating to Forest (Conservation) Act (69 of 1980) would come in the way of their right to do business of running saw mills outside a forest or non-forest area. It is to be noted here that the orders impugned in the writ petitions or non-consideration of the case of the petitioners for grant of renewal/fresh licence for running saw mills are based on the instruction issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests pursuant to the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court.

6. A common counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar (respondent No. 1) in C.W.J.C. No. 9058 of 2000 in which it is stated that in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad V/s. Union of India, (AIR 1997 SC 1228) (supra) giving general direction in sub-paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of paragraph 5, certain steps have been taken by the Forest and Environment Department. Sub-paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the said judgment of the Apex Court read as follows :-

"7. Each State Government should constitute within one month, an Expert Committee to assess :(i) the sustainable capacity of the forest of the State qua saw mills and timber based industry;(ii) the number of existing saw mills which can safely be sustained in the State;(iii) the optimum distance from the forest, qua that State, at which the saw mill should be located.

8. The Expert Committee so constituted should be requested to give its report within one month of being constituted.

9. Each State Government would constitute a Committee comprising of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and another Senior Officer to oversee the compliance of this order and file status reports."It is stated that in view of the above direction of the Apex Court, an Expert Committee was constituted which has submitted its report to the State Government in the Department of Forest and Environment. The report of the Expert Committee, in brief,