S.N.JHA, J.

1. In this batch of letters patent appeals the dispute, in substance, relates to the validity of instructions issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in the matter of renewal and grant of fresh licence for running saw mills in the State of Bihar.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by rejection or non-disposal of their application for renewal of licence or cancellation/suspension of licence under the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulations) Act, 1990 (in short the Act). The case of the appellants shorn of details which it is not necessary to notice, is that the saw mills established by them are source of their livelihood and the impugned action of the authorities is violative of their fundamental right to carry on trade and business under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The impugned direction in the matter of grant/renewal of licence has professedly been issued pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court dated 12-12-1996 in the case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad V/s. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228, but the said direction does not prohibit doing business of running saw mills in a non-forest area i.e. outside forest, and, therefore, not only the impugned direction but also the consequential action cancelling or refusing to renew the licence, in some cases keeping the renewal application pending, is arbitrary and illegal.

3. According to the State of Bihar, in view of the direction of the Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad V/s. Union of India (supra), contained in sub-paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of paragraph 5 of the order dated 12-12-1996, the State Government constituted an Expert Committee which submitted report to the effect, inter alia, that out of existing 3991 saw mills only 1110 saw mills are sustainable and the remaining saw mills should be closed in a phased manner over a period of three years. The said report of the Expert Committee was accepted by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Bihar. In his opinion, apart from the said number of saw mills, 90 plywood mills and 100 veneer mills out of existing 109 and 265 plywood and veneer mills, respectively, could be safely operated in the State. The Department of Forests and Environment, however, proposed to allow 1950 saw mills to run, besides all the existing plywood and veneer mills, and to close the remaining saw mills in a phased manner over a period of three years. In the counter-affidavit the Department further stated that as the Supreme Court has put a complete ban on movement of cut trees and timber, with certain exceptions, no new licence could be granted to saw mills in view of the fact that number of saw mills sustainable in State of Bihar is much less than already existing.

4. The learned single Judge repelling the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants observed that though direction of the Apex Court does not relate to running of saw mills in a town or in an area which is admittedly a non-forest area, the direction to constitute Expert Committee to assess the sustainable capacity of the forest of the State qua saw mills which can safely be sustained in the State and the optimum distance from the forest qua the State at which the saw mill should be located, was intended to decide the number of saw mills and the timber based industry which should be allowed to operate and as to the order which should be made with respect to the further grant of licence to them. Thus, if even after the report of the Expert Committee the State authorities are allowed to continue granting renewal/fresh licence with respect to the saw mills and timber based industry, the very object for constituting the Expert Committee etc. will stand frustrated particularly when the report of the Expert Committee is to the effect that number of the existing saw mills and other timber based industry exceeds the optimum which can be said to be sustainable according to the capacity of the forest of the State.

5. It may be mentioned here that s