IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. C.W.P No. 2330 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 23, 2010 Kapil Dev ` …Petitioner Versus: State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). By means of this writ petition the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 22.9.2009 whereby the registration of the Timber Sale Depot made in favour of the petitioner vide registration order No. 82/03-04 dated 27.6.2003 (Annexure P-8) has been cancelled. 2. The petitioner has raised many grounds in this petition. We are not going into the other grounds and are disposing of this petition on one short ground. One of the grounds raised by the petitioner is that Sh. Kunal Satyarthi, IFS, Divisional Forest Officer, Mandi, had ceased to hold the office of the Divisional 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Forest Officer, Mandi, on 15.9.2009 and, therefore, he was functus officio thereafter and could not have passed an order cancelling the registration of the timber depot in favour of the petitioner on 22.9.2009. It is not disputed before us that Sh. Kunal Satyarthi had in fact ceased to hold the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Mandi, w.e.f. 15.9.2009. It was however contended on behalf of the State that the date mentioned in the office order (Annexure P-8) is the date of endorsement and not the date the order was passed. 3. To verify this fact we had called for the original record. On perusal of the original record, we find that vide noting dated 28.9.2009 draft order was placed before the Divisional Forest Officer. On 8.10.2009, the Divisional Forest Officer, wrote that the ACF should check up the draft and complete the facts and the reasons should be recorded to make it a speaking order. On 13.10.2009 some document was put up before the Divisional Forest Officer and he ordered that put up with connected cancellation order. This note of the Divisional Forest Officer, is undated. Thereafter, next note of the officer whereby the DFA was put up to the Conservator of Forests is also undated. We have perused the entire record and we find that all the other notes in the file are dated except for those notes. In the notes signed by the Divisional Forest Officer, he has mentioned the date under every note except this note. 4. In addition to the aforesaid facts we also find that the order which has been issued bears the date 22.9.2009 at the top 3 of the order. Even below the signatures of Sh. Kunal Satyarthi, it is mentioned “Dated Mandi the 22-09-09”. It is urged on behalf of the State that the date 22.9.2009 is the date of endorsement or dispatch. This does not appear to be correct because even at the top of the order it bears the date 22.9.2009 and at the bottom of the cancellation order the date is connected with the designation of the officer (Annexure P-8) where he has signed the order. The contention thus does not appear to be correct. 5. We are, therefore, of the view that this order was signed on 22.9.2009 when Sh. Kunal Satyarthi, had ceased to hold the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Mandi and, therefore, is liable to be set-aside on this short ground. This order is accordingly set aside. In view of the fact that we have set aside the order of Sh. Kunal Satyarthi, on the ground that this order was passed when he was functus officio as a natural sequel thereof the order dated 17.3.2010 (Annexure P-10) has also to be quashed. 6. The matter is remanded to the Divisional Forest Officer, Mandi, who, after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner herein to the show cause notice dated 29.3.2007, shall pass a fresh reasoned order on the same within a period of six weeks from today. We may make it absolutely clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the Divisional Forest Officer shall decide the issue in dispute totally on its own merits uninfluenced by the fact that this writ petition has been allowed. 4 7. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. September 23, 2010. (rana)