PRABHA RAVEENDRAN Vs. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:-

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner who was a licensee of a saw mill had omitted to renew the licence in time due to an unfortunate accident occurred to her son. It is stated that the licence granted to the petitioner's saw mill expired on 21.01.2016. It is stated that in the meanwhile an O.R. No. 2/2016 was registered by the Ambanur Forest Range alleging the involvement of the petitioner's son in a forest offence and the articles including wood and the machinery of the saw mill were seized by the forest officials. It is stated that the petitioner is arrayed as an accused in the O.R. The petitioner had produced the ownership certificate and submitted an application for renewal along with the late fee as prescribed in the rules. It is stated that by Ext.P5 proceedings, the application for renewal has been rejected on the ground that the saw mill in question was involved in a forest offence. The order was challenged before this Court and by Ext.P6 judgment, the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appeal under the provisions of the rules. The petitioner contends that the statutory appeal is also dismissed by Ext.P7 on the same grounds. Ext.P8 revision petition is preferred by the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P9 proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the orders rejecting the application for renewal on the ground that there is no finding as against the petitioner. As regards Ext.P9, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statutory revision has been rejected by a cryptic order, which does even disclose the reasons for the non consideration of the revision petition.