Patna High Court
Uday KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court declined to intervene in the cancellation but allowed the petitioner to continue his representation before the appellate authority and directed the respondents to dispose of it promptly.
Summary
The petitioner, Uday Kumar, challenged the cancellation of his wood‑based industry licence (No. 359 of 1995) by the Licensing Officer, who issued Memo No. 1563 on 22‑07‑2025 on the ground that the renewal was not submitted, without granting a hearing. The petition sought a writ to quash the cancellation, mandamus directing the officer to consider the renewal petition filed on 08‑01‑2026, and an order restraining interference with the operation of his saw‑mill. The petitioner informed the court that he had already filed a representation before the appellate authority and sought the court’s direction to allow that process to continue. The State counsel raised no objection. The court disposed of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to pursue his representation before the appellate authority and directing the respondents to dispose of it at the earliest.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of the licence without a hearing violates the procedural requirements of the Bihar Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2025.
- Whether the court can issue a mandamus directing the Licensing Officer to process the renewal petition filed on 08‑01‑2026.
- Whether the court can restrain the respondents from interfering with the operation of the petitioner’s saw‑mill.
Subjects
- licence cancellation
- wood based industries
- mandamus
- quashing order
- procedural fairness
- environmental law
- forest department
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3052 of 2026
======================================================
Uday Kumar Son of Ganesh Prasad Sah, Resident of village- Dharampur,
P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur- 843117.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chairman, State Level Committee for Wood- Based Industries-cum-
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Department of Environment, Forest
and Climate Change, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Licensing Officer-Cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Tirhut Forest
Division, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Mistry, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General (3)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 30-04-2026 Heard Mr. Vinay Mistry, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“i) For issuance of a writ in the nature
of quashing of the Order bearing Memo No. 1563
dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure-P-4) passed by the
Licensing Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer,
Tirhut Forest Division, Muzaffarpur whereby the
License of the petitioner bearing License No. 359
of 1995 has been cancelled simply on the ground
Patna High Court CWJC No.3052 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
2/3
that the renewal of license was not submitted as the
aforesaid order has been passed without hearing to
the petitioner under the provisions of Bihar Wood
Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation)
Act, 2025.
ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3-
Licensing Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer,
Tirhut Forest Division, Muzaffarpur to dispose of
the petition dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure-P-6) filed
by the petitioner for recall of the order bearing
Memo No. 1563 dated 22.07.2025 and further to
renew the license bearing License No. 359 of 1995
on the basis of deposit of entire renewal fee in the
prescribed format for the year 2000-2026 dated
08.01.2026 in view of the decision of SCL dated
14.01.2025 (Annexure-P-3) in the facts and
circumstances of this case.
iii). For issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents not to
interfere with the operation of saw mill in the facts
and circumstances of this case.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.3052 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
3/3
3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he has already preferred a representation
before the appellate authority which may be directed to be taken
to its logical conclusion.
4. Learned State counsel has no objection to it.
5. In that background, the writ petition stands
disposed of allowing the petitioner to pursue his representation
and the respondents are directed to dispose it of at an earliest.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…