- (1.) THE prayer of the petitioner Virendra Singh was to quash the order dated 4-6-1993 passed by Respon dent No. 3 the Forest Ranger, Forest Range Laxmipur (Van Prabhag III), Maharajganj, as contained in Annexure-3 to this writ petition. His further prayer is to command the Respondents to relate the woods which have been taken away from his possession and not to interfere in his peaceful business.
(2.) A perusal of Annexure-3 shows that it is a seizure report submitted by respondent No. 3 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Unfortunately the Chief Judi cial Magistrate has not been impleaded as a party- respondent by the petitioner nor has it been stated as to what order he has passed in relation to the seizure report. Its further perusal shows that the Saw machine of Virendra Singh alias Balbeer Singh, Proprietor of 'singh Saw Mill' was enquired into in presence of (i) Forest Officer, North Gorakhpur, (ii) Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nautanwa, (iii) Forest Officer Laxmipur, (iv) Circle Of ficer Farenda, (v) Station House Officer, Puranderpur and other Police and Forest officials. During enquiry in the Saw Mill premises it was found that after bringing illegally round logs from the forest some of which were cut and seized along with tools used in the Saw machine and brought to the office premises by exercising the powers vested in the authority under Sec tions 26 and 52 of the Forest Act and Saw Mill Rules. We find that the following order was passed by this Court on 8-9-1993:- "learned Standing counsel prays for and is granted three weeks Lime and no more to file counter- affidavit, Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within a week thereafter. List for admission on 10th October, 1993. Unit further orders, the respondents are restrained from interfering in running of the Saw Mill of the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to remove any wood outside the Saw Mill. " This writ petition was originally filed by the aforementioned Virendra Singh alias Balbeer Singh after whose death the present petitioner has been sub stituted. The Submissions:
(3.) THE main thrust of the contention of Sri A. K. Shukla, learned counsel ap pearing in support of the prayers made in this writ petition, was that no term and condition of the licence granted under the Saw Mill Rules was breached by Virendra Singh aforementioned in whose Mill the logs were only cut. From where they had come was not required to be enquired. In any event the articles of Saw Mill could not be seized. Accordingly the seizure was il legally made and the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed for in this writ peti tion. Sri H. R. Misra, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, with reference to the state ments made in the counter-affidavit and its Supplementary, contended that the sub missions are thoroughly misconceived; the licence of the father of the petitioner was cancelled by the Government in the year 1994 itself and even the appeal preferred against the order cancelling his licence has also dismissed in the year 1994. Our Findings:;