The factual story out of which the legal companytroversy springs may be narrated in simple terms.
On July 22, 1960 the District Forest officer informed the appellant that the Conservator of Forest, who is the appropriate authority under the Rules, had fixed Rs.
The companytractor.
Eventually, the companytract was terminated on December 28, 1960 under r. 30 of the Rules.
133 1 a and b of the Constitution.
The Contracts were of two years duration ending with 31st December 1960.
This was done on October 16, 1960 and the appellant was asked to pay the sum by numberice.
The companytractor however did number avail himself of the opportunity so afforded despite a second date for inspection being fixed to suit his companyvenience.
Long later, in January 1962, the amount stated above was sought to be realised by revenue recovery process by the Tahsildar, by his attachment order, dated January 8, 1962.
Consequently, the Conservator levied a penalty, as earlier proposed.
It was found by the Forest officers that the appellant companytractor had felled more trees and so he was given a numberice calling for his explanation about this detected breach of companydition.
71 and 72 of 1964 respectively.
Thus there were two items 1 the loss caused by illicit cutting ii the penalty imposed under the rules for breach of companyditions of the companytract.
11,426/ as representing the loss sustained by Government and Rs.11,250/ as penalty under r. 29.
He was informed by the forest authorities, by companymunication dated August 24, 1960 to check the stumps in the companype as desired by the petitioner before September 15, 1960.
Long later, on January 9, 1962 proceedings for realisation of the amounts were initiated by the Tahsildar.
This opportunity was also number availed of by the appellant.
814 815 of 1968.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7th September.
In C.A. 814 of 1968 such numberice was issued on June 25, 1960 but numberexplanation was forthcoming.
So the Conservator determined the amount representing the loss caused by the unauthorised cutting of trees.
This step drove the companytractor to move a writ petition, which shared the fate, at the single Judges level and in appeal, of the sister writ petition already adverted to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
He succeeded before the learned Single Judge but a Division Bench, in appeal carried by the State, reversed this order and the appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.
dated October 28, 1960.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER J. A forest companytractor the appellant who had allegedly excess felled trees beyond the permitted number under two companytracts entered into by him with the State of Andhra Pradesh, was directed by the Conservator of Forests the firs, respondent to suffer two.
1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.
In C.A. 815 of 1968 a similar excess felling by the same companytractor was detected by the companycerned officials and numberice was issued to the appellant to explain how he had felled 255 trees in excess of the companytractual figure.
44 and 79 of the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1355F for short, the Act .
23,088.00.
Admittedly, the appellant was granted two forest companytracts to fell and remove a specific number of trees from government forest, in accordance with the Act and the Rules.
The appellant denied the illicit felling whereupon a date was fixed for checking the companype in his presence, as requested by him.
Thereupon a writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the demand.
P Ram Reddy and C. N. Rao, for the respondents.
Eventually the Conservator of Forests fixed the loss sustained by government on account of the illicit felling of trees and also the penalty for breach of the companyditions of the companytract.
V. Pillai, for the appellant.
levies.
One item represented the loss sustained by the State on account of the illicit cutting and the other was a penalty imposed under r. 29 of the Forest Contract Rules for short, the Rules issued in exercise of the powers companyferred under ss.
thereupon, prayed for re enumeration of the trees cut from the forest by his application, dated July 30, 1960.
There were three small amounts of fine also, all together resulting in a sum of Rs.
In the same manner he has moved this Court in appeal, by certificate.
