JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J.:—A forest contractor - the appellant - who had allegedly excess felled trees beyond the permitted number under two contracts entered into by him with the State of Andhra Pradesh, was directed by the Conservator of Forests - the first respondent - to suffer two levies. One item represented the loss sustained by the State on account of the illicit cutting and the other was a penalty imposed under Rule 29 of the Forest Contract Rules (for short, the rules) issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 44 and 79 of the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1355F (for short, the Act).

2. The factual story out of which the legal controversy springs may be narrated in simple terms. Admittedly, the appellant was granted two forest contracts to fell and remove a specific number of trees from government forest, in accordance with the Act and the Rules. The Contracts were of two years duration ending with 31st December 1960. It was found by the Forest Officers that the appellant contractor had felled 783 more trees and so he was given a notice calling for his explanation about this detected breach of condition.

3. In C. A. 814 of 1968 such notice was issued on 25-6-1960 but no explanation was forthcoming. So the Conservator determined the amount representing the loss caused by the unauthorised cutting of trees. 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. 11426/- as representing the loss sustained by Government and Rs. 11,250/- under Rule 29 as penalty. The contractor thereupon prayed for re-enumeration of the trees out from the forest by his application, dated July 30, 1960. He was informed by the forest authorities, by communication dated August 24, 1960 to check the stumps in the coupe as desired by the petitioner before September 15, 1960. This opportunity was also not availed of by the appellant. Consequently, the Conservator levied a penalty, as earlier proposed. Thus there were two items (i) the loss caused by illicit cutting; (ii) the penalty imposed under the rules for breach of conditions of the contract. There were three small amounts of fine also, all together resulting in a sum of Rs. 23,088.00. Eventually, the contract was terminated on December 28, 1960 under Rule 30 of the Rules. 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. Thereupon a writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the demand. 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. 133 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution.

4. In C. A. 815 of 1968 a similar excess felling by the same contractor was detected by the concerned officials and notice was issued to the appellant to explain how he had felled 255 tress in excess of the contractual figure. The appellant denied the illicit felling, whereupon a date was fixed for checking the coupe in his presence, as requested by him. The contractor however did not avail himself of the opportunity so afforded despite a second date for inspection being fixed to suit his convenience. 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 conditions of the contract. This was done on October 16, 1960 and the appellant was asked to pay the sum by notice dated October 28, 1960. On the same date, the lease was also terminated.

5. Long later on January 9, 1962 proceedings for realisation of the amounts were initiated by the Tahsildar. This step drove the contractor to move a writ petition, which shared the fate, at the single Judge s level and in appeal, of the sister writ petition already adverted to. In the same manner he