KHAJA RAHEEMUDDIN Vs. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was granted Saw Mill licence in the year 1976. He was issued a show-cause notice, dated 24-5-2005, by the Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar, the second respondent herein. It was pointed out that there are discrepancies in the quantities of timber, dealt with by the petitioner under various permits. It was also alleged that there is a difference of quantity of timber between the one, found on physical verification and the one, entered in the Stock Register. It is stated that the petitioner submitted a representation on 13-6-2005, to the second respondent to furnish the copies of certain documents, based on which, the show cause notice was issued. The request is said to have been reiterated in the representations, dated 2-8-2005 and 8-2-2006. The petitioner contends that without considering his request and without giving adequate opportunity to him, the second respondent passed an order, dated 23-2-2006, directing cancellation of the Saw Mill licence. He filed an appeal before the first respondent. The appeal was also dismissed on 4-7-2006. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that on receipt of a representation, dated 24-5-2005, from the petitioner, they furnished almost all the documents mentioned therein, on 31-8-2005 and the petitioner filed explanation, dated 22-9-2005. As regards the opportunity during the course of enquiry, it is stated that all the officials named by the petitioner were summoned and he was given an opportunity to cross-examine them. It is urged that the order impugned in the writ petition does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

(3.) Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to effectively participate in the enquiry at various stages. He contends that the copies of documents, based on which the show- cause notice was issued, were not famished to his client and that the representation seeking permission to engage an Advocate was not disposed of either way. He further submits that the second respondent did not refer to any documents or evidence in support of his conclusion. The learned Counsel also contends that though specific grounds, touching on procedural and substantive aspects, were urged before the first respondent, none of them were taken into account.