1. In all these cases, the petitioners were operating Saw Mills under licences, subsisting or lapsed, issued under the provisions of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act. The petitioners in all these cases seek to challenge the Government Resolution issued by the Secretary, Environment & Forest Department, Government of Bihar under his memo no. 418E, dated 8.7.2002 (a copy of which is at Annexure 5 in C.W.J.C. No. 9701 of 2002).

2. The resolution coming under challenge contains certain decisions arrived at by the State Government after a long exercise following directions issued by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad V/s. Union of India & Ors.). In compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court from time to time in the aforesaid case, the State Government constituted Expert Committee(s) and in the light of the reports of the Expert Committee(s), it has issued the impugned resolution. By the impugned resolution the Government fixed the total number of Saw Mills (1450) on the basis of the sustainable capacity of the forests in the State. It then fixed the norms of distribution of the 1450 Saw Mills mainly on the basis of population and demand for timber in the rural and urban areas. In the impugned resolution the Government also laid down norms for issuing new licences and/or for shutting down the saw mills being in excess of 1450, the total number of saw mills fixed for the State in the light of the Supreme Court directions. As a consequence of the State Government decisions, as contained in the impugned notification, a large number of saw mills are faced with the prospect of cancellation/ non-renewal of their licences for running saw mills and in those circumstances a number of writ applications have been filed challenging the Government Resolution, dated 8.7.2002.

3. The main submissions in this batch of cases were made by Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, who was followed by Mr. Mishra and others. In view of the order proposed to be passed in these cases, it is not needed to take notice of the petitioners contentions in any great detail but a bare outline of the submission is indicated for the sake of the record.

4. Mr. Mahto submitted that to carry on business in timber and to run saw mills was one of the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The right was subject only to reasonable regulatory measures which were contained in the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 and the Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1993 and as long as the petitioners conformed to the regulatory measures laid down by the Act and the Rules, they could not be denied the right to carry on business of saw mills.

5. He next submitted that the State Government was acting completely unreasonably and arbitrarily in purported compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad. Learned counsel submitted that the Supreme Court had given different directions for different States and so far as the State of Bihar was concerned, there was no direction by the Supreme Court to shut down the existing mills by denying them the renewal of licences. In support of the submission, Mr. Mahto relied upon a decision of this Court in Rajeeva Ranjan Sinha V/s. State of Bihar 2000 (1) B.B.C.J. Part-V, page 31 [; 1999 (3) PLJR 955]. He also relied upon a Bench decision of the Jharkhand High Court in L.P.A. No. 275 of 1997 (R) (unreported) and a Supreme Court decision in Jawahar Lal Sharma V/s. Divisional Forest Officer, U.P., A.l.R. 2002 S.C. 769 para 6). Apart from the aforesaid two main Points, Mr. Mahto assailed the impugned notification on some other grounds.

6. Mr. Mishra apart from adopting the submissions made by Mr. Mahto, advanced some other points for assailing the impugned Government Resolution, dated 8.7.2002.

7. Having thus briefly noted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners against the impugned Government decision, th