M. Y. Eqbal, J.-'Whether a person after making an application under Section 5 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 (in short the said Act) becomes entitled to operate his Saw Mill or Saw pit after expiry of thirty days in terms of the proviso to Section 5 of the said Act, is a moot question to be decided in this case.

2. Before deciding this question it would be useful to refer some of the relevant facts of this case. The appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the said Act for grant of a licence for operating a Saw Mill. The said application dated 13.7.93 was received in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih being the licensing authority on 19.7.93. When the application of the appellant was not disposed of, he filed a fresh application on 11.2.94 for grant of licence which remained pending for consideration. Appellant's further case is that since his application having not disposed of within 30 days he became a 'deemed licensee' and started operating the Saw Mill from 1.4.94. On 14.4.94 a raid was conducted by the respondents in the said Saw Mill and huge quantity of illegally procured wood was found in the premises of the appellant. The respondents then initiated a confiscation proceeding against the petitioner and final order in the confiscation proceeding was passed by the Divisional Forest Officer and the seized articles were confiscated. The appellant then preferred an appeal against the said order before the Conservator of Forest which was dismissed on 26.3.93. In the mean time the application filed by the appellant for grant of licence for operating Saw Mill was rejected and the said order was affirmed in appeal filed by the appellant before the Appellate Authority. These orders were challenged by the appellant in the aforementioned C.W.J.C. No. 2964/ 1997(R).

3. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 12.1.99, dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant though applied for grant of licence but without passing any order in that regard started operating the Saw Mill.

A raid was conducted and huge quantity of forest produce was recovered from the said Saw Mill. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that since the appellant failed to comply the requirements of law, his application for grant of licence was rightly rejected by the licensing authority.

4. Mr. R. N. Sahay learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the appellant, without a licence having been granted, started operating his Saw Mill contrary to the provisions of Section 5 of the said Act. Learned counsel further submitted that proviso to Section 5 of the said Act very clearly provides that after expiry of 30 days from the date of filing of the application the applicant acquires the status of a deemed licensee and, therefore, he is entitled to operate Saw Mill without waiting for the disposal of his application for grant of licence.

5. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand submitted that irrespective of the provisions of Section 5 of the said Act the court cannot direct the licensing authority to grant licence for the establishment of Saw Mill in the State of Bihar. Learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1997 SC 1228.

6. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties it would be useful to look into the relevant provisions of the Act. Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act. 1990 was enacted and published in the Bihar Gazette dated 7.12.90 and obtained the assent of the President in November. 1990. The said Act was enacted for regulating in the public interest the establishment and operation of Saw Mills and Saw Pit and Trade of sawing for the protection and conservation of forest and the environment. Section 2 of the said Act defines the word 'Saw Mill' which means the pla