M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dated 7.9,2001 and 12.12.2001 issued by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Conservator of Forest, Deoghar Circle, Deoghar and the Divisional Forest Officer, Deoghar, whereby the application for renewal of licence of Saw Mill has been rejected.

2. Petitioners case is that in 1996, he had applied for grant of licence for Saw Mill and after due inquiry that the Saw Mill situated outside the forest area a licence was granted in 1997. The said licence being registration No. 1/97 was time to time renewed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Deoghar. All of a sudden in 2001 petitioner was directed by respondent No. 4 to produce all the documents in relation to his Saw Mill. Petitioner produced all the documents. However, suddenly respondent No. 4 refused to renew the licence and directed the petitioner to stop the Saw Mill.

3. Respondent No. 4 in his counter affidavit has stated that petitioner was granted licence for the Saw Mill in Deoghar township in 1997 after the ban imposed by the Supreme Court for grant of fresh Saw Mill licence. It is stated that Government of Bihar also took a policy decision not to grant licence for Saw Mills in the district Deoghar. It is further stated that on 14.2.2001, a meeting was held in which it was decided to reduce the number of Saw Mills in the district of Deoghar in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court. Respondents further case is that on 21.6.2000, a raid was conducted in the Saw Mill of the petitioner on the basis of which a confiscation case being Case No. 17/2000 was started against the petitioner and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-was imposed.

4. From perusal of the Impugned letter dated 7.9.2001, it appears that the Conservator of Forest ordered that renewal of licence shall not be issued till further order in view of the order passed by the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation. In another letter dated 12.12.2001, the Divisional Forest Officer informed the petitioner that all licences which were issued after 12.12.1996 shall not be renewed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court.

5. From perusal of the impugned letter issued by Divisional Forest Officer refusing to renew the licence of the petitioner, it appears that the only ground taken by the authority is that pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court no new licence can be granted after 12.12.1996. It is stated in the said letter that since petitioner was granted licence for Saw Mill in the year 1997 therefore, it cannot be renewed. It is not the case of the respondents that the Saw Mill of the petitioner is situated within the forest area.

6. In the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1228, the Supreme Court while considering the question about the object and purpose of the enactment of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 issued some guidelines. In the order dated 12.12.1996 the direction inter alia given by the Supreme Court reads as under :

"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.

7. The Supreme Court again passed the order in the same ease on 4.3.1997 (AIR 1997 SC 1233) issuing further direction. Para 4 of the said order