South India Perfumes, Ms. Pondicherry Essential Oil Industries and Pleasant Essential Oils vs Union of India (UOI)

D. Murugesan, J.—The issues involved in all these writ petitions are similar in nature and both the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondents advanced their arguments in common. Hence, all the writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal together.

In W.P. No. 2786, 2793 and 2797 of 2001, the respective Petitioners have challenged the order of the 2nd Respondent namely the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Department of Forests, Government of Pondicherry dated 9.1.2001 revoking the no objection certificates issued to the Petitioners for running the factories in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The respective Petitioners have also challenged the consequential order of the 2nd Respondent dated 10.1.2001 directing the respective Petitioners to stop distillation of sandal wood oil at their premises. In W.P. Nos. 2780, 2794 and 2798 of 2001, the respective Petitioners have challenged the order of the 3rd Respondent namely the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Department of Forests and Wildlife, Government of Pondicherry in cancelling the property mark registration certificates granted to the Petitioners.

According to the Petitioners, they established the small scale industries for the purpose of manufacturing sandal wood oil and they have got licences to manufacture sandalwood oil, jasmine oil, vetti root oil and lemon grass oil etc. and for the present the Petitioners are manufacturing only sandalwood oil. All the Petitioners had obtained the certificates of registration under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 from the Commercial Tax Officer, Pondicherry and they have obtained licences under the provisions of the Factories Act 1948 from the Factories Inspectorate, Pondicherry. The Petitioners have also obtained licences under the provisions of Pondicherry Village and Commune Panchayat Act 1973. The Petitioners have also obtained the registration certificates from the Superintendent of Central Excise, Pondicherry under the provisions of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The Petitioners have also registered themselves permanently as small scale units by the Directorate of Industries, Pondicherry. The Petitioners have also obtained consent from the Pondicherry Pollution Control Committee u/s 21 of the AIR (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981.

The Petitioners used to purchase sandalwood chips of all types for their industrial purpose and they have got their registration of their separate property mark as contemplated under the Pondicherry Timber Transit Rules. The 2nd Respondent has also given the no objection certificates pursuant to the registration of their property mark wherein the forest department had no objection for running the factories in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The licences, permissions, certificates obtained from various statutory Authorities are valid as on date and the Petitioners are carrying on their business strictly in compliance with the rules and regulations. As per the statutory requirement, the Petitioners are having their godowns which are kept under the seal and custody of the 2nd Respondent and separate stock registers are also maintained by the 2nd Respondent. The Petitioners used to purchase sandal wood from Government sources and the entire quantity purchased by the Petitioner''s are duly accounted for. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents being statutory Authorities are empowered to issue permits as provided under the Pondicherry Timber Transit Rules. The officers of the 2nd Respondent used to have periodical visits to the Petitioners'' units for the purpose of releasing raw materials which the Petitioners intend to use for manufacturing processes. While so, pursuant to the search operation in the Petitioners premises on 26/27.5.2000 u/s 50(1)(b) of Wildlife (Protection Act) 1972, the 2nd Respondent issued show cause notices on 8.6.2000 to the Petitioner in W.P. No. 2786/2001, on 8.6.2000 to the Petitioner in W.P. No. 2793/2001 and on 22.6.2000 to the Petitioner in W.P. No. 2797/2001 calling upon the Petitioners to furnish the proof of their being in lawful possession of certain quantities of sandalwood, sandalwood chips, powder and oil to the satisfaction of the 2nd Respondent within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notices. In the said notices, it was alleged that the Petitioners were found in possession of sandalwood, sandalwood chips, powder and oil in contravention of rules framed u/s 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1972. The Petitioners have sent their replies to the said notices on 7.7.2000 stating that the Petitioners do not possess excess quantities of stock and the Petitioners also requested the 2nd Respondent to make arrangements for physical verification of stock. After the receipt of the reply, the 2nd Respondent once again issued another memorandum dated 18.7.2000 calling upon the Petitioners to furnish the relevant documents to prove that the Petitioners are in lawful possession of the forest produce found and sealed on the premises on or before 24.7.2000. In response to the said memorandum, the Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 2786 and W.P. Nos. 2793 and 2797 of 2001 sent reply on 5.8.2000 and 28.8.2000 respectively along with documentary evidence in support of their case. There was a surprise visit made by the 3rd Respondent and the 3rd Respondent carried out indiscriminate weighing of all the materials including waste products dust, mud etc. without sufficient opportunity given to the Petitioners and effected seizure of the sandalwood products and the 3rd Respondent also filed complaint u/s 190(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the alleged contravention of Rule 9 of Pondicherry Timber Transit (Amendment) Rules 1998 punishable under Rule 10 of the said Rules read with Section 151(2) of Indian Forest Act 1927 and the criminal cases are still pending.

The 2nd Respondent issued show cause notices to the Petitioners to explain as to why the no objection certificates issued by the 3rd Respondent should not be revoked. The said show cause notices dated 1.12.2000 do not disclose any other information except stating that the Petitioners have been found to be procuring and processing sandalwood from illegitimate sources in contravention of Rule 9 of Pondicherry Timber Transit Rules 1983 and in violation of the terms of the no objection certificates issued earlier and the activity of the Petitioners were found to be prejudicial to the interest of the Forest Conservancy and it was believed that continuance of the business of distilling the sandalwood oil by the Petitioners would harm the interest of forest conservation and the Petitioners have sent their reply on 13.12.2000. Not satisfied with the explanation, the 2nd Respondent passed the impugned orders revoking the no objection certificates in respect of the Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 2786,2793 and 2797 of 2001 which have been challenged before this Court.

On the above factual background, the Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 2780,2794 and 2798 of 2001 were also issued with the show cause notices dated 1.12.2000 calling upon the Petitioners to explain as to why the property mark registration certificates should not be cancelled for which the Petitioners replied on 13.12.2000. Not satisfied with the replies, the impugned orders cancelling the property mark registration certificates granted to the Petitioners earlier by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Department of Forests and Wildlife the 3rd Respondent herein. Aggrieved by the same, the above writ petitions have been filed.

Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the Petitioners challenging all the impugned orders would submit that the impugned orders are non-speaking and stereo type, without application of mind, no independent enquiry was conducted before the orders were passed, there is no power for the Respondents to direct the Petitioners to stop distillation under the Pondicherry Timber Transit Rules and that too when the goods are under the lawful custody, the seizure was made and moreover prior to seizure-, no opportunity was given to the Petitioners. The learned Additional Advocate General drew my attention to the very impugned orders to contend that a reading of those orders would disclose a clear non-application of mind and are non-speaking. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that even the averments made in the counter affidavit do not indicate as to whether there was a proper application of mind on the part of the Respondents before passing the impugned orders. All that has been stated in the counter affidavit in paragraphs 7,11,12,13,14,15 and 16 are with reference to extraction of rules only wherein if any person possessing beyond the prescribed limit of 5 kgs forest produce except under the special permit issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, the said person is said to be contravening the Rules. In so far as the inspection conducted by the 3rd Respondent, as per paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit except by stating that on oral information received at the end of May 2000 to the effect that the Petitioners and other like units in the Union Territory of Pondicherry have nexus with criminal elements operating in the forests of Tamil Nadu and indulging in smuggling of sandalwood and poaching elephants for tusks and a racket has been going on in Pondicherry, no other details have been given for inspection. Further the learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that the copy of the inspection report were not furnished to the Petitioners. The learned Addl. Advocate General further submitted that the following relevant and note worthy factors have not been adopted at the time of inspection:

(a) There was no proper physical weighment according to scale.

(b) The method adopted for getting the figures arrived by the 3rd Respondent was not a scientific method. In other words, the calculations were done roughly after collecting waste in jute bags.

(c) The spent dust that was found in the premises was in moisturized condition. Though there was some approximate reduction given by the 3rd Respondent while arriving at the figure, the actual weight of spent dust and other waster will be much less than what has been arrived at in the report as the percentage of moisture was on the higher side.

(d) In the manufacturing process huge quantity of fire wood is used. (Every day one tonne of fire wood). For process of one tonne of sandalwood more than 40 tonnes of fire wood is used. The ashes and the burnt firewood derivatives also were dumped along with the spent dust and other waste that were obtained in the manufacturing process as no separate space was provided for storing the sandalwood derivatives namely spent dust etc. separately. The 3rd Respondent while taking the measurement has never made an attempt to identify the spent dust and waste that were obtained as a result of the manufacturing process after processing sandalwood separately. This has resulted a serious irregularity on the part of the 3rd Respondent while arriving at the figures mentioned in the seizure report after stating that the quantities mentioned in the seizure report are in excess of what has been lawfully possessed by the Petitioners.

(e) While taking weight the 3rd Respondent engaged JCB to collect all the waste, dust, ash, etc. that were just spread in the open space inside the Petitioner premises. While collecting materials, the sand, mud, dust etc. were also taken in the jute bags along with the spent dust. It is only on account of this kind of an indiscriminate and improper weighment, the figures arrived at by the 3rd Respondent was exorbitant. For all the above reasons, the seizure report and the actual seizure of the products by the 3rd Respondent was improper and opposed to law and no prudent person can agree with the manner in which the weighment was taken and the seizure was effected, After seizing certain quantity of sandalwood products, the 3rd Respondent has filed a complaint u/s 190(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1972 stating that the Petitioners have contravened Rule 9 of the Pondicherry Timber Transit (Amendment) Rules 1998 which is punishable under Rule 10 of the Pondicherry Timber Transit (Amendment) Rules 1999 read with Section 151(2) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the criminal cases are now pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry. As there is no basis for the said complaint and the complaint is based on wrong particulars as a result of improper weighment conducted by the 3rd Respondent, the Petitioners are contesting the cases. Absolutely there is no rhyme or reason in the criminal complaint filed by the 3rd Respondent against the Petitioners for the alleged contravention of the provisions of the Pondicherry Timber Transit Rules 1983 as amended in 1998 and in 1999.

(f) At the time of inspection 1500 kgs of heart wood and 2000 kgs of sapwood which were released by the department from the godown for processing was not actually taken for the process. The 3rd Respondent has taken this also as excess even though the Central Excise Department has certified this extend as stock.

Therefore, the learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that on the ground of non-application of mind as well as on the ground that the orders are non-speaking, all the impugned orders are unsustainable.

It was next contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that there was no power for the Respondents to revoke the no objection certificates under the Rules. In this connection, the learned Additional Advocate General drew my attention to the Rules 8, 9 and 10 of Pondicherry Timber Transit Rules hereinafter referred to as "The vales" which are extracted as follows:

Rule 8; Use and registration of property marks:

(1) The ownership of timber obtained from private lands, markets or depots shall if moved within the area specified in schedule-B, be indicated by a property mark.

Explanation: In this rule, the expression ''timber'' excludes bamboos and fuel billets not exceeding 12 decimeters in length.

(2) All such property marks shall be registered at the office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Horticulture). A fee of Rs. 25/- shall be charged in respect of registration and Rs. 12/- for renewal of property mark. It shall be lawful for the Director of Agriculture to require from any owner of a property mark, any applicant for registration of property mark, and any applicant for the supply of permits in Form-II information relating to the locality, quantity of wood available and any other details which the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Horticulture) may require in order to give effect to these rules. He may refuse the registration of property mark or the issue of Form II permits and may cancel or suspend registration or any property mark if the information required is not given if he considers that such property mark is not distinctive or for other good and sufficient reasons. The Deputy Director of Agriculture (Horticulture) shall record his reasons for such refusal, suspension or cancellation and submit his order for confirmation by the Director of Agriculture. A certificate in Form IV shall be granted by the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Horticulture) on registration of such property mark. A register of property marks shall be maintained in the office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Horticulture)in form V. The fee once paid shall not be refunded under any circumstances.

(3) Any person who entrusts his property mark to his authorized agent as defined in the explanation to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 or any other person shall be liable for the consequences of any illegal act committed under these rules by such authorized agent or other persons.

Rule-9: Red Sandars Wood: No person shall have in his possession or move red sanders timber, chips or powder except under a special permit issued by the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Horticulture)in Form VI:

Provided that nothing contained in this rule shall apply to:

(a) red sanders wood not exceeding 5 kgs in weight carried by any bona fide traveller or any person authorized by him in writing for his personal use; or

(b) red sanders wood cut and carried by a ryot for his own personal use from trees growing on the patta lands of the said ryot or of any neighbouring ryot from whom title to such red sanders wood is derived provided that he obtains a certificate of title from the village munsif and that the quantity cut and carried on each occasion does not exceed 2 kgs in weight.

Rule 10: Penalties (1)whoever contravenes any of the provisions of these rules shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or both.

(2) in cases, where the offence is committed after sunset and before sunrise or after preparation for resistance of lawful authority or where the offender has been previously convicted of a like offence the penalties shall be double of these mentioned in Sub-rule (1) above.

Relying upon the above Rules, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that there is no provision for the 2nd Respondent to revoke the no objection certificates and the 3rd Respondent to cancel the property mark registration certificates. As per the said Rules, there is no requirement of property mark registration certificates to be obtained for sandalwood, sandalwood powder and chips and therefore there is no occasion for the Respondents to cancel such certificates. In the absence of any power under the Rules, the impugned orders cancelling the property mark registration certificates and revoking no objection certificates are invalid.

The learned Additional Advocate General next submitted that the impugned orders are in violation of principles of natural justice in as much as the Petitioners were not given proper opportunity either at the time of inspection or during the course of seizure. The learned Additional Advocate General also would rely upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. and another, etc. etc., . He would also rely upon the same judgment to contend that the Petitioners are entitled to carry on their business on the strength of the no objection certificates and also the property mark registration certificates in distillation of sandalwood oil and by the impugned orders their right to carry on their trades are deprived of. Hence for all these reasons, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the impugned orders are to be quashed.

In so far as the first submission of the'' learned Additional Advocate General for the Petitioners that impugned orders are non-, speaking and without application of mind, Mr. R. Natarajan, learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) submitted that it is not as if the impugned orders were passed without issuing any notices to the Petitioners. On information received, search operations were made in the Petitioners'' premises on 26.5.2000 and 27,5.2000 and on the basis of the such search operations ,show cause notices were issued to the Petitioners to furnish the proof of their being in lawful possession of certain quantities of sandalwood, sandalwood chips, powder and oil and the premises were sealed. In response to the said show cause notices, the Petitioners also replied. In the reply, the Petitioners sought to justify their possession of forest produce. Hence, further memorandum calling upon the Petitioners to furnish the relevant documents to prove that the Petitioners were in lawful possession of forest produce found and sealed on their premises to which the Petitioners sent reply along with certain documents in support of their case. In view of the stand taken by the Petitioners, further inspections were also carried on subsequently on 28.8.2000. During the course of the said inspection it was found that the Petitioners were found in possession of sandalwood, sandalwood chips, powder, spent dust and oil over and above the stocks shown in the registers and the quantity of sandalwood oil actually manufactured by the Petitioners were inferred to be much higher than stated in the records. During the course of inspection it was found that huge pile of sandalwood spent dust stored in a seepage tank and more lying in the open in the form of huge pile. The sandalwood powder loaded on the stills could not be taken out and weighed at that time itself as it was at a very high temperature being subject to steam at high temperature and pressure. Therefore, in view of the practical difficulties as stated approximate volumetric measurements were taken and approximate weight was arrived at for the spent dust. Even the approximate volumetric measurement was found to be grossly exceeding the average quantity by several times. Once again show cause notices were served on the Petitioners pending final measurements. However, the Petitioners did not explain properly to the said show cause notices. By taking the above into consideration only, the impugned orders were passed. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind and they being non-speaking orders.

In so far as the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General in challenging the application of Rules under 8, 9 and 10 of the Pondicherry Timber Transit Rules, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) submitted that the trades in question falls within the definition of forest produce. u/s 52(1) of the Act, when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce such produce, together with all tools, boats, carts, trucks or any other vehicle, or cattle used in committing any such offence maybe seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer. u/s 52(2) of the Act, every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized, and shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made or to his official superior, whoever may be nearer. u/s 54 of the Act, the Magistrate upon receipt of such report, shall with all convenient despatch take such measures as may be necessary for the arrest and trial of the offender and the disposal of the property according to law. Admittedly, on the basis of the seizure, a complaint was lodged u/s 190(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the Petitioners and the procedure to be adopted u/s 52 have been complied with. Under Rule 9 of the Rules, the Petitioners are empowered to possess only 5 kgs of sandalwood. On the other hand, they were found in possession of very huge quantities of sandalwood chips and powder. Such possession of huge quantities over and above 5kgs without special permits issued in Form No. VI is an offence and would amount to activity in contravention of the provisions of the Act. u/s 69 of the Act, when in any proceedings taken under this Act, or in consequence of anything done under this Act, a question arises as to whether any forest produce is the property of the Government, such property shall be presumed to be the property of the Government until the contrary is proved. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) submitted that by virtue of the provisions u/s 69, a presumption is attached to the forest produce found in possession of the Petitioners over and above 5 kgs of sandalwood as belonging to the State and hence the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the Respondents have no power under Rule 9 to pass the impugned orders cannot be accepted as the officers by virtue of the powers conferred u/s 52 of the Act are empowered to inspect and effect the seizure of such produce. In view of the above only, the no objection certificates and the property mark registration certificates were cancelled and revoked.

The learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) in reply to the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General in regard to the violation of the principles of natural justice contended that proper show cause notices were given to the Petitioners and sufficient opportunity were also given and thereafter only the impugned orders were passed and therefore it cannot be contended that there was no opportunity given to the Petitioners before the impugned orders were passed. In so far as the submission that the Respondents have no power to direct the stoppage of business, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Pondicherry) submitted that the Respondents have inherent powers to direct the stoppage of business when the Respondents found that the Petitioners have contravened the conditions stipulated in the no-objection certificates given to them and were found in possession of the forest produce without any special permits or Authority under law. In the event of such directions are not issued, the Petitioners cannot be prevented from handing forest produce without any permit. Such directions were issued only to preserve the forest conservancy. In this connection the learned Counsel would rely upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in "The The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and Another Vs. Ramjee, " Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that all the averments made by the learned Additional Advocate General are not tenable and are liable to be rejected.

I have considered the rival submissions of the respective counsel. Coming to the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General as to the challenge made to the impugned orders on the ground of non-application of mind, non-speaking and are in violation of principles of natural justice, it is to be noted that on the information received by the Respondents, search operations were carried on and on the basis of the search operations, individual notices were given both for revocation of no objection certificates as well as cancellation of property mark registration certificates on the ground that the Petitioners were found in possession of sandalwood, sandalwood chips, sandalwood powder for distillation of sandalwood oil in contravention of "the Rules" framed u/s 41 of the Indian Forest Act 1927. In each of the individual notices, the actual quantity of sandalwood, sandalwood chips, oil and powder were mentioned. Only after quantifying the actual quantum which were found in the premises and were over and above the quantity, the Petitioners can possess, the Petitioners were asked to submit their explanations. The explanations offered by the Petitioners were not found to be satisfactory to the Respondents and therefore only the Respondents sent another memorandum calling upon the Petitioners to produce documentary evidence to justify the possession of the quantity of sandalwood, sandalwood chips, powder and oil. Even the replies to the said memorandum were not satisfactory and therefore only the impugned orders have been passed. The submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that at the time of inspection, search and seizure, proper opportunity was not given cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the Petitioners were given opportunity by way of show cause notices for possession of the forest produce and by subsequent show-cause notices even for production of documents to justify such possession. The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the procedure adopted in arriving at the quantum of forest produce are also arbitrary and without any scientific method. The averments contained in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit is relevant to the above submission. In the said counter affidavit it is stated that when the search was made on 27.5.2000 on receipt of certain information, prima facie it was found that the Petitioners were found in possession of huge quantity of sandalwood, sandalwood chips, powder and sandalwood spent dust which were much larger than what were shown in the registers maintained by the respective Petitioners. It is further explained in the counter affidavit that since the sandalwood powder loaded on the stills could not be taken out and weighed at that time itself as it was at a very high temperature being subject to steam at high temperature and pressure, approximate volumetric measurements were taken and approximate weight was arrived at for the spent dust and assuming the weight of powder in the stills to be equal to the capacity of the stills. Even the approximate measurements were found to be grossly exceeding the authorized quantity by several times. For that also, show cause notices were issued for production of documents for which there was no satisfactory explanation. When the second inspection was carried on 28.8.2000, the collection and weighing was done in the presence of independent witnesses, representatives of the Petitioners, officials of police department and forest department. The materials were carefully collected in gunny sacks and weighed and adequate care was taken to ensure that no sand or ash etc. gets collected inadvertently resulting in excess weighing, as ultimately, post seizure, the seizing officer is liable for seized material which is of high value. After measurements ,only the material in excess of what the Petitioners were authorized to keep was seized and the remaining was left with the Petitioners being their property. From the said averments, it is very clear that the Respondents have taken all sufficient steps to have the forest produce collected and measured. When such measurement exceeds 5 kgs as per Rule 9 of "the Rules" without any special permit in Form VI, the presumption u/s 69 in respect of the excess forest produce is that such possession is deemed to be unauthorized and the produce belonged to Government. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the procedure adopted by the Respondents in coming to the measurements with regard to the quantity of sandalwood, sandalwood chips, powder and oil are not properly done and were not scientific more particularly, when the Petitioners were given sufficient opportunity to account for such possession of forest produce and seizure were effected in the presence of independent witnesses also. Further, it is to be seen that after the seizure the Respondents in consonance with Section 52 have produced the seizure mahazar to be criminal court having jurisdiction and also filed complaints against the Petitioners u/s 190(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure Therefore, I do not find any procedural error in the inspection and seizure effected by the Respondents. In this connection, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in "The The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and Another Vs. Ramjee, " which reads as follows:

Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processful propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man shall be hit below the belt-that is the conscience of the matter.

In view of what is stated above, it cannot be contended that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind, non-speaking and have been passed without following the principles of natural justice. Even in the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. and another, etc. etc., "cited by the learned Additional Advocate General, it has been only held as follows:

Coming back to the issue, what flows from the entitlement to lead evidence? The principle of natural justice, as a part of procedural law, developed by this Court and English Courts has been applied and extended to quasi-judicial proceedings and administrative matters to ensure that no one is adversely affected without reasonable opportunity and fair hearing. No order can be passed without hearing a person if it entails civil consequences. But what about those situations where, as in the present case, the legislature stops short by providing an option to appear only. The local body cannot claim to be impleaded as a matter of right. Nor can it invoke the principle of natural justice. Yet it is entitled to lead evidence. It may or may not. The latter does not present any difficulty. But if it intends to lead evidence then no mechanism has been provided to enable it to exercise its option. In situations where even though a person has no enforceable right yet he is affected or likely to be affected by the order passed by the public authority the courts have evolved the principle of legitimate expectation.

As I have found on materials that the Petitioners have been given sufficient opportunity, the Petitioners cannot have assistance from the above judgment. Hence, I reject the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General in this regard.

Coming to the power of the Respondents either to revoke the no objection certificates or to cancel the property mark registration certificates, it is true that under Rule 9 of the Pondicherry Timber Transit Rules, there is no specific provision for the Respondents to cancel the no objection certificates or property mark registration certificates. However, it should be seen that the Rules are framed by virtue of the powers conferred u/s 41 of the Forest Act. The relevant rules under which the State Government as in this case the Government of Pondicherry can frame, are as follows:

Section 41(2): In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may

(b) prohibit the import or export or moving of such timber or other produce without a pass from an officer duly authorized to issue the same, or otherwise that in accordance with the conditions of such pass;

(d) provide for stoppage, reporting, examination and marking of timber or other forest-produce in transit in respect of which there, is reason to believe that any money is payable to the Government on account of the prices thereof, or on account of any duty, fee, royalty or charge due thereon, or to which it is desirable for the purposes of mis Act to affix a mark;

(i) regulate the use of property marks for timber, and the registration of such marks; prescribe the timber for which such registration shall hold good; limit the number of such marks mat may be registered by any one person, and provide for the levy of fees for such registration.

Section 52 of the Act is an independent provision enabling the forest officer to confiscate the forest produce if he has any reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce. The power of the Respondents to effect seizure can be traced to the above section. After the seizure, criminal cases were also registered against the Petitioners and the same are pending. The above action of the Respondents are in conformity with their powers and duties conferred u/s 52(2) of the Act enabling them to place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized, and send a report of such seizure to the Magistrate. The seizure mahazars have also been produced before the Magistrate. After the above compliance, the impugned orders have been passed. It is needless to mention that when such an offence is committed on the strength of the no objection certificates and property mark registration certificates, it cannot be said that there is no power for the Respondents to cancel such property mark registration certificates and no objection certificates merely because the Rules do not provide for the same. It is well settled in law that when the Act enables the forest officials to seize the forest produce involved in the commission of forest offence, merely because the Rules do not provide for such power cannot in any way be held that the forest officers have no power to take action against the Petitioners who were otherwise found in possession of the forest produce over and above the average quantity and to take all other subsequent action in the interest of the forest produce. In fact, in the impugned orders revoking no objection certificates it has been clearly stated that the activities of the Petitioners are found to be prejudicial to the interest of the forest conservancy and it was believed that continuance of the business of distilling sandalwood oil by the Petitioners would adversely affect the interest of the forest conservation. When the Respondents came to know of any violation of no objection certificate or the misuse of the same, it will be open to them to revoke such certificate even in the absence of any specific rule enabling them to revoke such certificates. The power to grant includes the power to revoke also provided the Respondents give reasonable opportunity before passing order revoking the no objection certificates. As already referred, reasonable opportunity was given to all the Petitioners before passing the | impugned orders. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that in the absence of the Rules enabling the Respondents to revoke the no objection certificates already granted in favour of the Petitioners, the Respondents cannot pass the impugned orders. In so far as the cancellation of property mark registration certificates is concerned, as admittedly stated by the Respondents themselves that the said property mark registration certificates were given inadvertently and as per the Rules there is no such issuance of property mark registration certificates and therefore cancellation of such property mark registration certificates given mistakenly cannot be taken advantage of by the Petitioners to contend that the said property mark registration certificates would be valid for the period the same was given. It is elementary that when the officers are not empowered to issue a property mark registration certificate, the beneficiary of such certificate cannot take advantage of such issuance of a certificate, to act on the same and to contend that such certificate issued by mistake cannot be cancelled. Therefore, I do not agree with the said contention of the learned Additional Advocate General on this ground also.

The next contention of the learned Additional Advocate General is that the Respondents have no power to direct the Petitioners to stop the industry. When once the Court holds that the Respondents are empowered to revoke the no objection certificate for contravention of any of the provisions of the Act and when the Respondents found that the Petitioners are running the industry in contravention of the no objection certificate issued, it goes without saying that the Respondents can direct the Petitioners to stop the industry since without such no objection certificate, the Petitioners cannot run the industry for distilling the sandalwood oil. Therefore, it cannot be contended that such a direction cannot be given by the Respondents by way of impugned orders to the Petitioners to stop running the factory.

For all my foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in all the contentions raised by the learned Additional Advocate General for the Petitioners and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs, consequently, connected W.M. Ps. are also dismissed.