Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Divisional Forest Officer And Another vs J&K; Special Tribunal And Another on 2 December, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 JAMMU AND KASHMIR 25
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
OWP No. 670/2008
MP No. 987/2008
Date of decision: 02.12.2017
_______________________________________________________________
Divisional Forest Officer and another vs. J&K Special Tribunal and another
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Janak Raj Kotwal, Judge
Appearance:
For petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayjaz Lone, Govt. Adv.
For respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate.
_______________________________________________________________
(i) Whether to be reported in Press, Journal/Media : Yes/No
(ii) Whether to be reported in Journal/Digest : Yes
1. In this writ petition, petitioners seek quashing of order dated 15.05.2008 passed by the learned Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the Special Tribunal) in a revision petition in File No. STJ/260/2007.
2. Background facts leading to the filing of this writ petition need to be stated in some detail, which are these. Late Roop Chand, the father of respondent No. 2, (hereinafter to be referred as the „Permission Holder‟) was permitted to fell twelve dry „Deodar‟ trees standing on his land comprised in Khasra No. 765/617/216 situate at village, Bhatan, Tehsil, Kishtwar, by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu vide Order No. 402/1257/4051-56 dated 14.03.1996. This permission was granted by the Divisional Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Sections 5(d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Preservation of Specified Trees Act, 1969 (hereinafter to be referred as „the OWP No. 670/2008 Page 1 of 17 Act‟). Likewise, he was permitted to lift the timber of three dry „Kail‟ trees fallen by natural process on the same land by the Deputy Commissioner, Doda vide his Order No. 118-21/SQ dated 22.04.1996. This permission was granted by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 13-A of the Act.
3. On 24.07.1996, the local Block Forest Officer visited the area and found that the Permission Holder under the garb of the permission to fell twelve dry trees has resorted to felling and conversion of green tress as well. He inspected the area and found that twenty one trees were felled on spot and 885 scants of timber were lying scattered. He seized the tools and the entire stuff and reported the matter to the Range Officer of the area, that is, the Range Officer, Nagseni. The Range Officer registered original Miscellaneous Case No. 1/96-97 and vide his No. 18/DC dated 08.08.1996 (Annexure C) reported the matter to the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Kishtwar, herein petitioner No.1, with request that :
"The case may please be dealt with under the provisions of the Specified Trees Act under rules and safe disposal of seized stuff may please be made in view of prevailing situations as the safety of the stocks is not guaranteed in the open."
4. The petitioner No. 1 in turn vide his No. 1658-62 dated 24.08.1996 (Annexure D) referred the matter to the Conservator of Forests, Chenab Circle with a request that "the concerned revenue authorities may kindly be appraised about the violation made by the land owner" as the Permission Holder is liable to be penalized in terms of Rule 13 of the Act.
5. The Permission Holder, on his part filed writ petition in OWP No. 807/96 before this Court, impleading therein, besides the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the DFO, Kishtwar, the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and OWP No. 670/2008 Page 2 of 17 the Deputy Commissioner, Doda, as respondents. In this petition, he sought a direction to the DFO to grant in his favour permission in Form-25 to transport the timber covered under the aforementioned permissions and a direction to the Divisional Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner to revalidate the permissions granted by them till permission to transport in Form 25 is granted and restraining them from cancelling the said permission granted by them. He also sought a prohibition against the State and the DFO restraining them from interfering with or seizing or taking into possession the timber in any manner, whatsoever. In that writ petition, a learned Single Bench of this Court as an interim measure, vide order dated 04.10.1996 (Annexure E), directed the Sub-Judge, Kishtwar to make suitable arrangement for the protection of the timber, which according to the Permission Holder was lying in open field. Sub-Judge, Kishtwar in compliance with the order passed by this Court directed the DFO, Kishtwar to keep the said timber in the Forest Yard at Kishtwar.
6. The OWP No. 807/96 (supra) was disposed of by a learned Single Bench vide Judgment dated 13.11.1998 (annexure G) with a direction that "respondents would take notice of the directions given by the Supreme Court" in T. N. Godaverman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and ors. 1997 (2) SCC, 267. The Permission Holder challenged the judgment of the writ Court in Letters Patent Appeal, LPA (W) No. 607/1999. A learned Division Bench of this Court disposed of the LPA vide judgment dated 28.04.1999 (Annexure H) with following direction:
"We dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent No. 2 that he will consider the issuance of Form-25 in respect of fallen trees under the Land Transport Rules. The timber, if allowed to be transported, shall be got transported through the State Forest Corporation OWP No. 670/2008 Page 3 of 17 or departmentally, as per direction No. 2 of the Supreme Court, reproduced above. Final decision shall be taken by respondent No. 2 within a period of four weeks of receiving this order."
7. Pursuant to the direction issued by the learned Division Bench, the matter came up before the petitioner No. 1 (DFO, Kishtwar) on an application moved by the Permission Holder. The petitioner No. 1 vide his order No. 1666-71 dated 14.07.1999 (Annexure J), while referring to the violation of the permissions committed by the Permission Holder, framing of the aforementioned miscellaneous case against him, seizure of the stocks (timber) by the Forest Block Officer and its shifting to his office under the order of this Court and the Sub-Judge, Kishtwar, refused to issue the permission for transportation in Form 25 or to release the timber in favour of the Permission Holder. The reasons that prevailed upon the petitioner No.1 in refusing the permission for transportation are summarized in last two paragraphs of the order, which I reproduce as they would be relevant hereafter:
"Since the said stocks, which are admixture of green and dry, were transported to Divisional Forest Office under the directions of learned Sub-Judge, on the application of applicant moved before him and as such there was no necessity of issuing any F.25 subsequently and it was incumbent upon the applicant to bring this fact to the knowledge of Hon‟ble Division Bench but from perusal of the Judgment dated 24.04.99 (supra), it appears that the same has been suppressed by the applicant before the Hon‟ble High Court, wherein this office has been directed to consider the issuance of F.25 in respect of fallen trees alone in favour of the applicant under land transportation Rules. As already mentioned above the seized stocks have been transported under Court‟s order to Divisional Forest Officer, Kishtwar and there is OWP No. 670/2008 Page 4 of 17 no requirement of issuance of F.25 and rightly so the applicant too has not made any request for issuance of the same, but has applied for release of timber in his favour.
After having due compliance to the directions of Hon‟ble High court vide its Judgment dated 24.04.99 (supra) and after considering the facts and severity of the act committed by the applicant by making illegal and unauthorized felling of green standing Deodar and Kail trees, in contravention to the permission granted in his favour and also of the directions of Hon‟ble Supreme court passed in Godavarman‟s case imposing ban on felling of green standing Deodar or Kail trees, the applicant is not entitled for considering his request for release of the seized stocks in his favour. The application of the applicant is accordingly disposed of."
8. Not only that the petitioner No. 1 (DFO, Kishtwar) refused the grant of permission in Form 25 or to release the timber, he by a subsequent letter No. 1728-33 dated 17.07.1999 (Annexure K) referred the matter to the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu pointing out that the Permission Holder has violated the Act, the terms and conditions of the permissions granted to him as also the conditions imposed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on felling of green standing Deodar or Kail trees and recommended that the Permission Holder is liable to be dealt with and penalized under the Act. He also made a recommendation for disposal of the seized timber in terms of „Rule (15) 2 of the said Act‟.
9. The Permission Holder challenged the order dated 14.07.1999 passed by the petitioner No.1 before this Court in OWP No. 1088/99. A learned Single Bench of this Court dismissed that writ petition vide judgment dated 06.12.1999. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Permission Holder OWP No. 670/2008 Page 5 of 17 against judgment dated 06.12.1999 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA(W) No. 16/2000 vide judgment dated 12.12.2001. It may be worthwhile to state here that the Permission Holder died during the pendency of this LPA and his son, herein respondent No. 2, was substituted as his legal representative.
10. After dismissal of the LPA on 12.12.2001, respondent No. 2 preferred to file appeal against the order of petitioner No.1 dated 14.07.1999, (supra) before the Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu, herein petitioner No. 2, on 11.01.2002. Respondent No. 2, however, claims to have moved an application for withdrawing the said appeal and before any order in that application was passed, he preferred revision petition against the same order before the Special Tribunal. He challenged the said order on various grounds. The learned Special Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 15.05.2008 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 14.07.1999 passed by the petitioner No. 1 (DFO, Kishtwar). On scrutiny of record, the Special Tribunal found that only 688 scants of timber were found on spot, which were transported and dumped at the office of the DFO, Kishtwar and directed that the said timber be released in favour of herein respondent No. 2 (therein petitioner) forthwith and further passed a direction for issuance of permission in Form 25 in his favour.
11. The petitioners challenge the order dated 15.05.2008 passed by the learned Special Tribunal on various grounds in this writ petition, primarily, that the learned Special Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate in the revision petition against the order dated 14.07.1999 passed by petitioner No. 1 (DFO Kishtwar). Besides, the impugned order is challenged on the ground that the same has been passed in disregard to and overlooking the judgments of this Court in aforementioned writ petitions OWP No. 670/2008 Page 6 of 17 and LPAs. Impugned order is challenged also on the ground that in the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 2 serious allegations were leveled against the petitioner No. 1 and his predecessors and the Range Officers without impleading any one of them as party.
12. Respondent No. 2 has opposed the writ petition on various grounds, primarily, that petitioner No. 1, whose order has been set aside by the learned Special Tribunal, being a Quasi-Judicial authority, the petitioners have no authority to challenge the order passed by the learned Special Tribunal. It is contended that a Quasi-Judicial authority cannot challenge an order whereby an order passed by the said Quasi-Judicial authority has been set aside in appeal or revision. On merits, the writ is opposed on the ground that the order dated 14.07.1999 passed by the petitioner No. 1 was illegal for his having no jurisdiction under the Act and the seizure of the timber duly extracted by respondent No. 2 by the Forest Authority was illegal.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the learned Special Tribunal is without jurisdiction and therefore, nullity in the eye of law. Learned counsel argued that the order dated 14.07.1999 was an order passed under the Land Transport Rules, which is an administrative action of the prescribed authority in granting or refusing permission to transport a forest produce. The learned Special Tribunal entertained and heard the revision petition without the jurisdiction as no order passed under the Land Transport Rules is reviseable or appealable before the Government or Special Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted further that the petitioner No. 1 was not obliged to issue permission to transport the illegally extracted timber by the Permission Holder under the garb of felling/removing few dry trees from his land. The OWP No. 670/2008 Page 7 of 17 petitioner No. 1, therefore, while refusing the permission to transport, had reported the matter to the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu for action under 13 of the Act for violation of the permissions granted under the Act but the Permission Holder instead of putting up his case before the Divisional Commissioner, opted to challenge the refusal of permission to transport in the writ petition before this Court and after dismissal of the writ petition and the LPA challenge the same order in revision petition before the Special Tribunal.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted vehemently that the petitioners, having submitted to the jurisdiction of the learned Special Tribunal, are estopped from questioning the impugned order on the ground of want of jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal. In support, the learned counsel relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this court in Hukum Singh and others v. Mst. Indri and others, AIR 1959 J&K 98. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioners being a Quasi-Judicial authority are not entitled to file writ petition against an order whereby the order passed by the petitioner No. 1 has been set aside by the learned Special Tribunal. In support, learned counsel relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail vs Spl. Director, Enforcement and another, (2007) 8 SCC 254. On merits, learned counsel argued that the timber having been extracted in the private land, officers of the forest department had no jurisdiction to seize the same and therefore, the seizure and subsequent refusal of permission to transport was illegal.
15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the statutory position, I am persuaded to hold that the learned Special Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in entertaining and hearing the revision against the order dated 14.07.1999 passed by the petitioner No. 1 (DFO, OWP No. 670/2008 Page 8 of 17 Kishtwar) as the said order was not revisable before the Special Tribunal. The impugned order passed by the learned Special Tribunal, therefore, is liable to be quashed for being without jurisdiction. I proceed to record the reasons for taking this view in the matter.
16. Section 3 of the Act read with Section 2 (d) prohibits felling of any specified tree (inter alia Deodar and Kail trees) standing on the State land or private land, outside a demarcated forest, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit granted by the prescribed authority under the Act. The Permission Holder in this case had obtained permission under the Act to fell twelve dry Deodar trees standing on his proprietary land from Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. The permission so granted provided that the timber would be used for his bona fide purpose. Likewise, he had obtained permission to lift the timber of three dry Kail trees, which had fallen in the natural process on the same land in terms of Section 13-A of the Act. This permission was granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Doda. The grant of permission or to fell the dry trees to lift the timber of the fallen trees, however, was not sufficient without a permission to transport the timber thereof from the land to the place where it was to be used or stored. Transportation of timber, as it is a Forest Produce as defined under the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Act, 1987, is permissible only under a permission to be granted in Form 25 by an authorized officer under the Land Transport Rules framed in terms of Section 15 of the Forest Act. The permission to fell or to remove the timber of the naturally fallen specified trees granted under the Act, is different than the permission to transport the timber (wood) obtained from such trees. The two permissions are exclusive of each other. Whereas felling any specified tree standing on one‟s proprietary land or removing OWP No. 670/2008 Page 9 of 17 timber of such a tree naturally fallen requires a permission under the Act, the transportation of their timber (wood) from the land requires a permission under the Land Transport Rules.
17. The judgment dated 13.11.1998 (Annexure G) rendered by the learned Single Bench of this Court in OWP No. 807/1996 filed by the Permission Holder read along with the Order dated 04.10.1996 (Annexure E) passed therein, whereby interim measure for protection of the timber was ordered, would show that the Permission Holder had approached this Court with the primary purpose of seeking a direction to herein petitioner No. 1 (DFO, Kishtwar) to issue permission for transportation in his favour in Form 25. The learned Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Bench dated 13.11.1998, had directed the petitioner No. 1 (DFO, Kishtwar) that he will consider the issuance of Form 25 in respect of the fallen trees under the Land Transport Rules. The order dated 14.07.1999, which at a later stage came to be impugned in the revision before the learned Special Tribunal, was passed by petitioner No. 1 pursuant to the judgment of the learned Division Bench, which, however, permission in Form 25 was refused by him for the reasons (supra) stated in the said order. Order dated 14.07.1999 was challenged by the Permission Holder in OWP No. 1088/1999. So far so good, as an order refusing permission to transport a forest produce under the Land Transport Rules can be challenged in a writ petition before this Court, there being no other alternative remedy provided against the said order in the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Act, or the Land Transport Rules.
18. The writ petition in OWP No. 1088/1999 was disposed of by the learned Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 06.12.1999. The view OWP No. 670/2008 Page 10 of 17 taken by the learned Single Bench is stated in last para of the judgment, which is reproduced:
"After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the "question as to whether green trees were cut and whether this was done in breach of the permission granted to the petitioner, is a question of fact. A finding of fact has been recorded by the Divisional Forest Officer. This aspect of the matter cannot be made the subject matter of adjudication in writ jurisdiction where the scope of interference is limited. The petitioner may, if so advised, prefer remedies which are available to him under the Forest Act. At the same time, the State and its functionaries are left free to take such action as is permissible under the Act for having felled some trees which is in breach of the permission granted by it. As this petition involves a question of fact, this is found to be without merit and is dismissed."
(underling by me)
19. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge was upheld by the learned Division Bench in LPA (W) No. 16/2000 vide judgment dated 12.12.2001, whereby the LPA was dismissed. The respondent No. 2, who had been impleaded as legal representative of the Permission Holder in the LPA, however, opted not to seek adjudication in the question of fact as to whether the permissions granted to him by the Divisional Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were breached by him or not. He instead opted to prefer appeal against the same order, that is, order dated 14.07.1999 passed by petitioner No. 1 (DFO, Kishtwar), before the petitioner No. 2 (the Chief Conservator of Forest, Jammu), which, he says, he did under wrong legal advice. Long after filing of this appeal, respondent No. 2 moved application for withdrawal of the same and filed revision petition against the same order, that is, order dated 14.07.1999, OWP No. 670/2008 Page 11 of 17 before the learned Special Tribunal in which the impugned order came to be passed.
20. It is not clear as to how the learned Special Tribunal found itself competent to possess jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition against the order dated 14.07.1999 (supra) and adjudicate in the same. Contextually paras 19 and 20 of the revision petition is noticed and I quote:
"19. That the petitioner preferred a Supplementary affidavit placing on record the joint inspection report conducted by officials of the forest department and Revenue authorities and ultimately the above said appeal was listed on 12.12.2011 and was finally dismissed observing that there is no infirmity in the order passed by Learned Single Judge dated 6.12.1999. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal against the order impugned herein before the respondent no. 2 on 11.01.2002 as per the directions passed by Hon‟ble Single Judge under the bonafide advice of his counsel. Copy of the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Division Bench is attached herewith and marked as Annexure-Q.
20. That the said appeal remained pending before the respondent No. 2 for more than five and half years but the respondent No. 2 failed to decide the appeal in spite of a considerable period of time and when the petitioner sought a second opinion from another counsel, the petitioner was told that the appeal before the Chief Conservator of Forests is not maintainable as the remedies provided under the Preservation of Specified Trees Act 1969 against the order impugned are either appeal before Financial Commissioner or Revision petition before the Government powers of which are vested in the Hon‟ble Special Tribunal."
21. A plain look at para 20 (supra) would show that the revision petition was filed before the learned Special Tribunal under the presumption that the OWP No. 670/2008 Page 12 of 17 order dated 14.07.1999, whereby permission for transportation was refused by petitioner No. 1 (DFO, Kishtwar), was passed under the Act and such an order was appealable before the Financial Commissioner or revisable before the Government, powers whereof are vested in the Special Tribunal. It needs to be stated, as has been explained above, an order granting or refusing permission to transport a forest produce, like timber (wood), is an order passed under the Land Transport Rules framed in terms of Section 15 of the Forest Act and not the one passed under the Act. The order dated 14.07.1999 (supra), therefore, was an order passed under the Land Transport Rules and, as indicated above, the Permission Holder had rightly challenged the same in OWP No. 1088/1999 before this Court, which was, however, dismissed by the learned Single Bench and dismissal was upheld by the learned Division Bench. Such an order is not appealable or revisable before the Government so revision to Special Tribunal was not maintainable on that score that too after dismissal of the writ petition against the same order.
22. The Land Transport Rules or even the Forest Act does not contain any provision providing for appeal or revision against an order granting or refusing the permission to transfer a forest produce to the Government or a Minister. Contextually, it is important to point out that the Special Tribunal has been created under Section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal Act, 1988 to hear such appeals, revision or review petitions, which under any law made by the State legislature was to be filed before the Government or a Minister. This being the statutory position, the Special Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate in the revision petition against the order dated 14.07.1999 passed by the petitioner No. 1 (DFO, Kishtwar).
OWP No. 670/2008 Page 13 of 1723. Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument, though without any reason, that the order dated 14.07.1999 was an order passed under the Act, there was no scope of showing any indulgence by the learned Special Tribunal because under Section 11 of the Act appeal against an order of the prescribed authority under the Act lies to the Financial Commissioner and there is no provision for filing appeal or revision to the Government against an order passed by the prescribed authority or even by the Financial Commissioner. The Act as a matter of fact does not contain any provision of appeal or revision against any order, whatsoever, passed under the Act to the Government or a Minister/Special Tribunal. The Special Tribunal, therefore, did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate in the appeal even if the case projected by the petitioner therein (herein respondent No. 2) was that the order dated 14.07.1999 was one passed under the Act.
24. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the petitioners after having submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the learned Special Tribunal in the revision petition filed by respondent No. 2, are estopped from pleading want of jurisdiction in the Special Tribunal in this writ petition does not hold water in the facts and circumstances of the case and the authority relied upon by him in Hukum Singh's case (supra) does not apply. It is noticed that the question relating to the jurisdiction of the learned Special Tribunal as a matter of fact was raised by therein petitioner (herein respondent No. 2) in para 20 of the revision petition himself by pleading that the new counsel engaged by him advised him that the remedy available under the Act against the order impugned therein was either appeal before the Financial Commissioner or revision petition before OWP No. 670/2008 Page 14 of 17 the Government(Special Tribunal), however, without explaining as to why he opted for filing the revision petition before the Tribunal and not the appeal before the Financial Commissioner.
25. The Special Tribunal, however, as the impugned order would show, did not accord consideration to the question of its jurisdiction so it cannot be said that therein respondents (herein petitioners) had subjected to the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal. Otherwise also, the petitioners cannot be said to have subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the learned Special Tribunal because it was the respondent No. 2, who had approached the Tribunal and not the petitioners, contrary to the facts in Hukum Singh's case in which therein petitioners themselves had invoked the jurisdiction of Custodian General and the order passed by the Custodian General being not favourable to them had challenged its validity on the ground that Custodian General had no jurisdiction.
26. Likewise, contention that the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the order passed by the learned Special Tribunal, whereby order dated 14.07.1999 passed by petitioner No. 1 has been set aside, as a Quasi- Judicial authority cannot challenge such an order too does not carry any water for the reason that order dated 14.07.1999, whereby permission to transport has been refused, was purely an administrative decision and cannot be said to be an order passed by petitioner No. 1 in exercise of Quasi-Judicial powers.
27. The impugned order passed by the learned Special Tribunal, having been passed without jurisdiction, is nullity and liable to be quashed on that score alone and therefore, need not be considered on merits of the matter.
OWP No. 670/2008 Page 15 of 17Nonetheless, some important aspects of the matter need to be pointed out lest the respondent No. 2 may not gather an impression that he has been rendered remediless and did not get right of hearing anywhere.
28. As stated hereinabove also, petitioner No.1 (DFO, Kishtwar) vide order dated 14.07.1999 had refused to issue the permission for transportation for the reason that the permissions for felling/removing the dry trees from his proprietary land granted by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and the Deputy Commissioner, Doda were breached by him by felling some green trees in addition to the permissible dry trees. Prior thereto the entire stock (timber) was seized by the Block Forest Officer of the area, which under the direction of this Court passed in OWP No. 807/1999 was transported and kept in the office premises of petitioner No. 1 at Kishtwar. Petitioner No. 1, however, did not stop there as he vide his communication dated 17.07.1999 (supra) referred the matter to the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu pointing out the violations. The Permission Holder at that stage should have approached the Divisional Commissioner to raise objection to the action taken by the petitioner No.1 and other officials of the Forest Department and to prove that no violation was committed by him. He instead approached this Court in OWP No. 1088/99 challenging the order dated 14.07.1999. In that petition, he got a clear finding from this Court that question as to whether green trees were cut and whether this was done in breach of permission granted to him was a question of fact and a finding in this regard recorded by the Divisional Forest Officer cannot be made subject matter of adjudication in the writ jurisdiction of this court. The finding recorded by the learned Single Bench was confirmed by the learned Division Bench in the LPA filed by the Permission Holder. The petitioner, who by that time had stepped into the shoes of the Permission OWP No. 670/2008 Page 16 of 17 Holder, however, seems not to have paid heed to the finding/observations recorded by the learned Single Bench. At least at that stage, the petitioner should have advised to approach the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, whom the matter had already been referred to by petitioner No. 1 (DFO, Kishtwar) vide his letter No. 1728-33 dated 17.07.1999 (supra) to show and establish that no breach was committed by him. Had he succeeded in proving before the Divisional Commissioner that no breach of the permissions for felling/removing the dry trees was committed by him, thereafter grant of permission to transport might not have been refused by the petitioner No. 1 under the Land Transport Rules. Respondent No. 2, however, firstly, opted to prefer an appeal against the same order, that is, order dated 14.07.1999, about which he had failed in the writ petition, before the Chief Conservator of Forest and then decided to withdraw the appeal and file revision petition before the Special Tribunal, which somehow came to be entertained and disposed of by the learned Special Tribunal without jurisdiction.
29. For all that said and discussed above, this writ petition has merit and is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.05.2008 passed by the learned Special Tribunal is set aside. It shall, however, remain open for respondent No. 2 to approach the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu to seek adjudication in and pursuant to letter No. 1728-33 dated 17.07.1999 addressed to him by petitioner No. 1.
30. Disposed of.
(Janak Raj Kotwal) Judge Jammu:
02.12.2017 Pawan Chopra OWP No. 670/2008 Page 17 of 17