DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KANMNAGAR EAST Vs. LACHI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ Appeal and the Writ petition arise out of the same transactions and since the parties are the same, they are posted together. That is why we are disposing of them under a common judgment. The appeal is against the decision of our learned brother, Jeevan Reddy, J. in Writ Petition No. 5264 of 1977.

(2.) The material facts are; The writ petitioner who is the respondent in Writ Appeal No. 38 of 1978 is the forest contractor for plot No.1 in Mahadevpur Range of forest in Karimnagar District for the year 1977-78. The consideration is Rs. 1,24,000/-. The period commenced on 1-2-1977 and expired on 31-1-1978. He paid the total amount of consideration.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that in June, 1977, the Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Warangal inspected the petitioner's area and found 87 trees had been illicitly failed in the areas surrounding the petitioner's coupe. On that allegation, he seized the entire forest produce within the coupe as well as 87 logs alleged to have been failed and transported illegally. He called upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as a condition for releasing the material seized from within his forest area. That amount was deposited and the petitioner also agreed to compound the offence. Though the other forest produce which had been seized was released, the 87 logs were not handed over back. The petitioner was again called upon to deposit a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- which demand also was complied with. Tnereupon, the Divisional Forest Officer, Flying squad Division compounded the Offence and levied a fine of Rs. 15,000/- He further directed confiscation of the said 87 logs. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Conservator of Forests, Warangal. Even when the appeal was pending, the Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar East issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the petitioner's contract should not be terminated under Rule 30 of the Forest contract Rules. An explanation was accordingly submitted. The principal point made by the petitioner in his explanation is that the ground on which the contract was sought to be terminated had already been the subject-matter of compounding proceedings and therefore, the initiation of the termination proceedings under Rule 30 was wholly unjustified and uncalled for. The petitioner's appeal, however, was dismissed on 27-10-1977. On 20th of November, 1977, the Divisional Forest Officer passed an order cancelling the forest contract. It was against this order cancelling the contract, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 5264 of 1977. This was allowed by Jeevan Reedy, J. and the Forest Authorities have preferred the appeal.