The authority has the power to cancel a license under Section 7(5)(C) of the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990, and the pendency of a criminal case does not preclude confiscation proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed against order dated 06.05.2010 passed in Appeal Case No. 6 of 2004, affirming order dated 07.11.2008 passed in Licence Case No. 4 of 2005, whereby decision has been taken by the authority concerned that the order dated 19.07.2004 passed in Licence Case No. 4 of 2004 cancelling the Licence No. 1/04 of the petitioner is just and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, reads as under:

3. It is evident that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Amar Saw Mill, Murhu having its License No. 1 of 2004. On 14.07.2004 at about 8.25 p.m. in course of checking two truck bearing registration no. BR 14G-0645 and BR-144/4502 were intercepted by the forest guards and in course of verification it was found that both the trucks were loaded with logs of wood in excess of permitted limit of Permit. Accordingly, both the trucks were seized and criminal case was instituted being Forest Case No. 34 of 2004 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Besides, one Confiscation Case No. 25 of 2004 was also initiated.

4. The competent authority of the forest department issued notice upon the writ petitioner as to why the penal action be not taken in the light of provision as contained under section 7(5)(C) of the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990 [hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1990"]. Further, vide order dated 19.07.2004, the respondent-authority directed for inspection of Saw Mill Store of the petitioner, which was carried out, however, it is the case of the petitioner that such inspection was made in his absence. Accordingly, on the basis of such inspection report order dated 19.07.2004 whereby licence No. 1 of 2004 of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner being aggrieved thereof preferred appeal being Appeal No. 6 of 2004, which was allowed vide order dated 25.07.2005 by remitting the matter back to the respondent no. 3 to consider the matter afresh by affording opportunity to the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, the matter was revived and the writ petitioner appeared before the original authority and after hearing the petitioner vide order dated 07.11.2008, the respondent no. 3 held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and order dated 19.07.2004 is just and proper and accordingly the proceeding was dropped.

6. Against the order passed by the original authority, the petitioner approached before the appellant authority which was also dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2010 in Appeal Case No. 6 of 2004, against which, the instant petition has been filed.

7. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the alleged illegality two proceedings were initiated i.e., one under the penal offence by instituting a criminal case being Forest Case No. 34 of 2004 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and another for confiscation.

8. Further, it is submitted that vide order dated 19.07.2004, the respondent-authority directed for inspection of Saw Mill Store of the petitioner, which was carried out but such inspection was made in his absence. Therefore, the submission has been made that the order impugned is highly unwarranted since the same has been passed without taking into consideration the fact that the criminal prosecution was pending on the date when the order was passed by the confiscating authority for confiscation, save and except this point no other point has been raised on behalf of petitioner.

9. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that there is no nexus of pendency of criminal prosecution so far it relates to the confiscation proceeding since both the proceedings are on two different parameters and are to proceed for different consequences. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the aforesaid premise has submitted that merely because the criminal prosecution was pendin