K.N.Singh, J. - (1.) By means of these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have claimed relief for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Conservator of Forest, Southern Zone, U. P. Allahabad, dated 19-7-1983, refusing to extend the period of licence to enable the petitioners Io cut and remove trees from the forest lots purchased by them. A further relief has been sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Conservator of Forest to permit the petitioners to cut and remove the trees from the lots purchased by them.
(2.) The petitioners are forest contractors in the district of Mirzapur. For the year 1980-81 they purchased a number of forest lots in Dudhi forest division in the district of Mirzapur for cutting and removal of trees. The forest authorities entered into agreement with the petitioners which stipulated that the petitioners will complete the cutting of trees by 31st March, 1981. The petitioners made necessary deposits but they could not cut or remove the trees within the stipulated time. They applied for extension of period to enable them to cut and remove the trees. Their application was recommended by the Range Officer and forwarded by the Divisional Forest Officer to the Conservator of Forest, Southern Range, who is empowered to grant extension. The Conservator of Forest instead of passing orders, forwarded the petitioners' application to the Chief Conservator of Forest who referred the matter to the State Government. Meanwhile the Government had taken a policy decision and in pursuance of that policy decision the Chief Secretary on September 1, 1981, had sent a note to the Secretary. Forest Department informing him that the Chief Minister had directed that till the issue of formal orders proceedings for grant of new Thekas to private contractors to cut trees be kept stayed. In pursuance of that note formal orders were issued by the State Government on October 21, 1981, imposing ban on the cutting and felling of trees in the forest in the year 1982-83. It further directed that henceforth the forest produce should be allotted to the U. P. Forest Corporation only and it should not be given to any private party. The State Government by its order dated March 16, 1982, rejected the petitioner's prayer for extension of period of contract. Aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the validity of the order of the State Government by means of a writ petition in this Court (Writ Petition No. 1054 of 1982). The State Government as well as the Conservator of Forest both contested the petition. The Division Bench held that neither under the note dated Sept. 1, 1981, nor by the Government Order dated October 21, 1981, did the State Government direct that request for extension relating to felling of trees pertaining to licence for the term 1980-81 be not entertained by the Conservator of Forest. The Bench further held that the Conservator was empowered under the Standing Orders dated May 19, 1977, to extend the period of licence. On these findings the Bench allowed the writ petition by its order dated May 19, 1983, quashed the order of the State Government and directed the Conservator of Forest to decide the petitioners' application for extension in accordance with law uninfluenced by the Government order dated October 21, 1981, and the note dated September 1, 1981. The Conservator of Forest thereupon considered the petitioner's application and by his order dated July 19, 1983, he refused to extend time for cutting, felling and removal of trees. Aggrieved the petitioners have again approached this Court by means of these two petitions.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners have deposited the entire contract money of more than Rs. 42 lacs and they have paid all the dues to the Government and yet they are not being allowed to cut or remove the trees which have been sold to them by the Forest Department. According to them, the work of cutting and felling is dose by manual labour and as there was acute paucity of labour in the Dudhi area, the petitioners could not cut or remove the trees within the stipulated period of time. They applied for extension of period and they had always been willing to pay the additional charges for tbe extension of period but the Conservator has refused to extend the period of licence arbitrarily. He had further asserted that the Conservator has been granting extension to several other similarly situated contractors but he has practised discrimination against the petitioners in refusing to gram the extension. Lastly, it was urged that the Conservator has failed to consider the relevant facts and he has refused to grant extension on extraneous considerations.;