1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the orders rejecting his application for grant of licence for establishing a Saw Mill as provided under section 5 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990.

2. The petitioner made an application for establishing a Saw Mill at Obra in the district of Aurangabad. It is undeniable that the village of Obra is not a forest or forest land within the meaning of the Forest (Conservation) Act. The petitioner's application was admittedly for the grant of a fresh licence and not for renewal of a subsisting licence.

3. According to the case of the respondents the petitioner was in fact running his Saw Mill from before without a licence and it was only after he was found running the mill without a proper licence that he made an application for grant of licence under the saw Mills (Regulation) Act.

4. Nothing much, however defends on this allegation as the petitioner was denied licence not because he was running a Saw Mill from before in violation of the provisions of the Saw Mills (Regulation) Act but because the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi has issued a direction prohibiting the issuance of any fresh licence for Saw Mills. The petitioner's application was, therefore, rejected by the Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Forest Division by his order, dated 22.7.1987. His appeal against this order was also rejected by the Conservator of Forest by his order, dated 23.9.1997. The appellate order also gave the same reason for rejecting the appeal and stated that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest by his letter no. 1663, dated 11.4.1997 had plainly directed that no new licence for a Saw Mill was to be issued till further orders by him.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent authorities it is admitted that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest had issued such a direction in his circular letter, dated January 3/4, 1997 (Annexure-11) and the imposition of a complete prohibition against granting a fresh licence for saw Mill is sought to be justified on the basis of the directions given by the Supreme court in the orders passed by it on different dates in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

6. Mr. A.A.G. III relied upon para 5.1.1 of the order dated 12.12.1996 passed in that case (reported in A.I.R.1997 S.C.1228). The directions given in that paragraph are as follows :-

"5.1.1:1. General;

1. In view of the meaning of the word "forest" in the Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central government is required for any non-forest activity within the area of any "forest". In accordance with section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that the running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or ply-wood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval of the Central government. Accordingly, any such activity is prima facie violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Every State Government must promptly ensure total cessation of all such activities forthwith." (emphasis added)

7. According to Mr. A.A.G. III the direction of the Supreme Court was clear "that the running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or play-wood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government." Mr. A.A.G.III reads this sentence in a completely unqualified manner and submits that the Supreme Court declared the running of saw mills anywhere (and regardless of whether or not it was situate within any forest area) impermissible without prior approval of the Central Government. But I am unable to accept the meaning put by the A.A.G.III on the direction given by the Supreme Court. The sentence relied upon by him has to be r