JUDGMENT
S.K. Gupta, J.
1. This is third round of litigation that the petitioners have approached the court by means of this writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order No PCCF/Lease/Timber/1600-3 dated 15th July, 2002 issued by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, whereby the sanctions issued to the petitioners for extracting timber from deodar dried standing trees in favour of the petitioners were found contrary to the rules. Further direction was sought by a writ of mandamus in directing the respondents to release the timber and its transportation permission with regard to the timber for which sanctions have been issued in their favour.
2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that the petitioners applied to the respondents for sanction to extract timber from deodar dried standing trees which, after completion of the formalities and on the recommendation of Forest Authorities, sanction was accorded in favour of the petitioners for extracting timber by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu vide his communications. After the timber was extracted and converted into sleepers, the petitioners approached the respondents for permission to transport the said timber to their residential places by issuing Form No. 25. A writ petition came to be filed by the petitioners and the stand taken by the respondents was that the enquiry was ordered to be conducted, which is still pending and the petitioners are not entitled to issuance of Form No. 25. The writ petition was, however, disposed of with a direction that Chief Conservator of Forests would take a decision, as to whether or not Form No. 25, is to be granted, within a period of two months from the date the copy of the order passed by the Court is made available to the respondents. The case of the petitioners was, however, considered in terms of the Court direction by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and issued an order dated 21.6.2001 and rejected the case of the petitioners on the ground that sanctions issued by Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu were contrary to the rules and, therefore, cannot be given effect to grant of Form No. 25 for transportation of this timber. It was further ordered by respondent 2 that the timber felled and converted be got transported by DFO, Billawar and put to auction, and the petitioner be refunded the cost of the trees and other amounts on account of felling and conversion received from them, out of the sale proceeds. It is further stated that the petitioners being dissatistied with the order of respondent 2, again approached this Court by filing a writ petition and the said writ petition was disposed of on 24.11.2001 with a direction to the respondents to pass a fresh order and afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners by putting appearance to respondent 2 explained the whole matter and stated that the sanctions for extracting the timber have since been operated upon and have neither reached the final stage of transportation of timber. Respondent 2, however, after hearing the petitioners at length and on considering all the aspects of the matter, rejected the claim of the petitioners. Respondent 2, however, found that the sanctions issued by Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu in favour of the petitioners are contrary to the rules and order that the money deposited by the petitioners be refunded to the original depositors and timber brought to the nearest Timber Sale Depots by the Divisional Forest Officer, Billawar for further disposal, which further became the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition.
3. The plea taken by the respondents, on the other hand, is that the timber is sanctioned granted in law to the concessionists only and since none of the petitioners fall within the definition of a concessionist, as such, they are not entitled to purchase the timber. The persons, who are entitled to the sanction of timber, are indicated in the Counsel Decision No. 481 dated 30th March, 1966 and Government Order No. FST/32/66 of 1966 dated 12th April, 1966. It is further submitted by the respondents that so far as the petitioners are concerned, they are not entitled to the grant of timber from the Forest Department since none of them resides within 3 to 5 miles within the demarcated forests wherefrom the trees have to be sanctioned, that the Sale Depots are also available from where they can purchase the timber. The petitioners do not belong to the category of the concessionists. Since the petitioners admitted that they do not belong to the category of concessionists, they are not entitled to timber. In that event, the petitioners are not entitled to seek direction to issuance of Form No. 25 for the transportation of the extracted timber in pursuance of the Court direction issued in OWP No. 710/2001, titled Mangoo Ram and Ors. v. State and Ors.. Their case was examined afresh and found that the sanctions issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests were contrary to the rules. Undoubtedly, it is the competent authority of the Forest Department, who has to grant sanction and issue the permission in the shape of Form No. 25 for transportation of extracted timber in accordance with the rules. Competent Forest Authorities have to examine the case of each individual and to take decision for the issuance of the sanction and transportation, if the case is covered within the rules. The Court cannot, in such circumstances, interfere and issue directions particularly when it is found that the sanctions already issued were contrary to the rules.
4. Taking series of facts and circumstances discussed above in its cumulative, the conclusion inevitably reached is that, there is no merit in this petition and is accordingly dismissed on admission stage.