Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Vinay Mistry, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rajat Kumar Tiwari for the State.

2. The appellant has challenged the order dated 02.01.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 168 of 2015, whereby the order passed by the Licensing Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Forest Division, cancelling the licence of the petitioner to run the saw mill as also the appellate order dated 23.07.2014 passed by the Conservator of Forest-cum-Prescribed Officer, Gaya Circle, Gaya in Appeal Case No. 3 of 2014 have been affirmed and upheld.

3. The licence of the petitioner to run a saw mill has been cancelled on the sole ground that he has parted control of the saw mill to a person in whose favour he has executed a power of attorney.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken this Court to the contents of the power of attorney, which clearly discloses that such power of attorney was executed for the limited purpose of running the saw mill on behalf of the appellant, which was necessitated because of his bad health. Nowhere in the power of attorney is there any clause which would lead one to infer that the entire ownership or control of the saw mill has been given to the power of attorney holder.

5. Mr. Vinay Mistry, learned counsel for the appellant has further drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 and Section 3 (4) of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1993 along with Form-C appended to the Rules meant to be filled up by the power of attorney holder for renewal of licence.

6. Section 7 of the Act of 1990, referred to above, deals with grant, renewal, revocation or suspension of licence, which is obtained under Section 5 of the Act. Any application for licence under Section 5 is required to be accompanied by application fee, security deposit as also compliance with other conditions. This is the controlling provision for renewal of licence as well. Section 7 (5) further declares that if the Licensing Officer is satisfied, either on a reference made to it in that behalf or otherwise that the licensee had parted, in whole or in part, with his control over the saw mill or saw pit or has otherwise ceased to operate or own such mill or saw pit or the licensee has, without reasonable cause failed to comply with any of the conditions of the licence or any directions given by the Licensing Officer or having contravened any of the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder or is not able to satisfactorily account for the wood in the premises of the saw mill or saw pit, then the licence is liable to be cancelled, after giving the licensee an opportunity of showing cause and forfeiture of any sum or any portion thereof which has been deposited as security for the due performance of the conditions of the licence.

7. Rule 3 (4) of the Rules of 1993 provides that the application for license for saw mill or saw pit, complete in all respects including the prescribed application fee, shall be submitted to the Licensing Officer and that no person would be permitted to file an application on behalf of any person or company until he encloses executed copy of the power of attorney authorizing him to work on behalf of such person or company and produces its original or the certificate of registration of such company of which he claims to be a partner before the Licensing Officer. The Form-C attached to the Rules further provides that a person holding the power of attorney could apply for operating the established saw mill/saw pit or a new saw mill or saw pit. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that from a conspectus of the afore-noted provisions in the Act and the Rules of 1990 and 1993 respectively, it is apodictic that a power of attorney could be executed by a licensee for the holder to act on his behalf and such power of attorney holder could apply for renewal of licence.

8. In the instant case, it has been urged that because