Shah, J. - (1.) Under a contract, dated October 14, 1956, the respondent was granted a right to the forest produce from Coupe No 9, Lendara in the Sainmura Borgaon Reserved Forest in the Kanker Forest Division of Bastar District of Madhya Pradesh, for the period October 14, 1956 to March 31, 1958. The Divisional Forest Officer held an enquiry in respect of certain breaches committed by the respondent of the terms of the contract, and by order, dated January 30, 1958, directed the respondent in exercise of the authority under R. 15 (1) of the Forest Contract Rules framed by the Government of Central Provinces and Berar, to pay Rs. 8,500 as compensation assessed by him for damage done in the reserved forest and Rs. 500 as penalty under R. 30 (1) of the Forest Contract Rules. An appeal against the order to the Conservator of Forests, and a revision petition to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Madhya Pradesh, were unsuccessful. The respondent then moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a Writ quashing the order, dated January 30, 1958, directing payment of compensation and penalty and restraining enforcement of the order. The High Court granted the petition and restrained the State and the forest authorities from recovering Rs 9,000 ordered on January 30, 1958, from the respondent.
(2.) In this appeal, the appellants contended in the first instance that the High Court was in error in holding that by Et. 15 of the Forest Contract Rules the Divisiona1 Forest Officer was not authorized to direct the contractor to pay compensation for damage done by him or his agents or servants, because the coupe was not in "a reserved forest". Such a case, it was said, was never pleaded by the contractor in his petition, and the High Court in granting relief to the respondent made out a case which the appellants had no opportunity to meet. In support of their case that the coupe is a part of the reserved forest the appellants have annexed to their petition for special leave a "true copy" of a notification issued under S. 20 of the Indian Forest Act 1927, as applied to the Central Provinces, declaring that the State forests of the Bastar District in Tahsil Kanker Sainmura-Borgaon specified in the Schedule shall be reserved forests.
(3.) We agree with the appellants that the High Court his without any plea or evidence assumed that compensation under R. 15 (1) could not be directed to be paid by the contractor for damage done in the coupe, for which he was given a contract, because the coupe was not included in a reserved forest. The plea which appealed to the High Court was not raised in the petition, nor in the objections to the Divisional Forest Officer in reply to the notice to show cause, nor in the memorandum of appeal before the Conservator of Forests, nor in the petition invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Chief Conservator of Forests. The High Court assumed that because the forest authorities charged the contractor with "illegal fallings in the coupe" wanted to him, the "fillings could not he in a reserved forest." For this assumption there is no warrant. The High Court was, therefore, in error in setting up the ground that the impugned order was not authorised by the terms of R. 15 (1).;