Judgment Ramaswami, J. 1. In this case the petitioner Lt. Col. K. S. R. Swami has moved the High Court for grant off a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution for, the purpose of calling up and quashing the order of the State Government conveyed in a telegram, dated 10-6-1954 (copy of which is annexure F to the application) and also the order of the Divisional Forest Officer dated 1-5-1954 (copy of which is annexure D to the application) prohibiting the petitioner from reclamation of certain area of forest land. 2. On 22-11-1945, the petitioner obtained settlement of a tract of land measuring 245.69 acres in village Singhpur, tauzi No. 3160, located in the district of Gaya. The petitioner obtained this settlement from Maharaj Kumar Gopal Saraih Narain Singh of Tekari, who was the proprietor at the time. Sometime in September, 1952 the petitioner applied - to the State Government for grant of a loan under the Land Improvement Loans Act. A loan of Rs. 10,000/-was granted to the petitioner, and as security for the loan the petitioner gave 150 acres out of the disputed land. On 8-9-1952, the Additional Sub-divisional Officer of Gaya wrote to the petitioner asking him to bring the waste land into culturable condition., on 30-9-1952 a notification was -issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Act and by virtue thereof title to the entire Tekari Raj Estate including the disputed land became vested hi the State of Bihar. Subsequently, the State Government issued a notification under the proviso to Sec.29 (3), Forest-Act. The notification was issued on 2-1-1953, and the State Government declared, pending an enquiry into the matter, the lands comprised in village Singhpur to be protected forest lands. There is another notification on 29-5-1953 under Sec.30, Forest Act. Under the, provision of this section the State Government prohibited the digging or clearing up of the soil for cultivation of the land of village Singhpur. Meanwhile, the employees of the Forest Department attempted to erect forest pillars inside the land. On 5-4-1954, the Additional Collector of Gaya along with the Divisional Forest Officer went to the disputed land and made a local inspection. On 8-4-1954 the petitioner applied to the Collector for permission to start reclamation of the land. On 22-4-1954, the Collector gave the petitioner permission to reclaim the land (vide annexure Clause to the application). Annexure C1 states : "To Dr. On 8-4-1954 the petitioner applied to the Collector for permission to start reclamation of the land. On 22-4-1954, the Collector gave the petitioner permission to reclaim the land (vide annexure Clause to the application). Annexure C1 states : "To Dr. K. S. R. Swami, Katari Road, Gaya. With reference to your petition dated 8th April 1954, you are informed that you can go ahead with the work of reclamation and cultivation in the area settled with you by the ex-proprietor. Sd/- K. Abraham, Collector, Gaya." The Collector gave permission acting under the authority conferred upon him under Rule 8 of the rules framed by the State Government under Sec.32, Forest Act. On 1-5-1954, however, the Divisional Forest Officer gave a written order to the Forest Range Officer that reclamation of the land by the petitioner should be stopped (See Annexure D to the application). The order of the Divisional Forest Officer is to the following effect: "From Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Division. To Range Officer, Barachatty. Stop Reclamation by Col. Swami within Demarcated area. Forest Officer. Memo No. 9559 dated 1-5-54. Copy by post forwarded to the Range Officer Barachatty for information. The R. O. should take all legal steps to stop reclamation from the demarcated forest. Sd/- R. N. Sinha, Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Division. Memo No. 9559 dated 1-5-54. Copy to Dr. D. S. R. Swami, Katari Road, Gaya for information with reference to Collector Gayas letter No. 245 dated 28-4-54. The order of the Collector is nothing new for the reclamation of the land. In fact he had asked for reclamation when he had advanced Rs. 10,000.00 as loan for this work. . Sd/- Illegible Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Division. On 7-5-1954, the petitioner filed an application before the Collector of Gaya complaining that the Divisional Forest Officer was interfering with the reclamation of the land. Thereupon the Collector wrote to the Divisional Forest Officer asking for an explanation. The letter of the Collector was to the following effect: "To The Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Division, Gaya. Please refer to your Memo No. 1991 dated 1-5-1954 to Dr. K.S.R. Swami, Katari Road, Gaya, and let me have by tomorrow latest your explanation as to why you have, deliberately directed your Range Officer, Barachatty, to flout my orders. I had given Dr. Please refer to your Memo No. 1991 dated 1-5-1954 to Dr. K.S.R. Swami, Katari Road, Gaya, and let me have by tomorrow latest your explanation as to why you have, deliberately directed your Range Officer, Barachatty, to flout my orders. I had given Dr. K. S. R. Swami permission to go ahead with the work of reclamation and cultivation settled with him by the exproprietor in my letter No. 245 dated 22-4-54. You have referred to this letter in your above mentioned memo and have yet not, hesitated to go deliberately against my instructions. 2. If your explanation is not received by 1 P.M. tomorrow enclosing also cancellation of your above mentioned order to the Range Officer, I shall take up the matter with Government so that you may be suitably dealt with. You will please note that my letter under reference was Issued after taking the opinion of the Government pleader. Sd/- Abraham Collector, Gaya 7-5-54. Copy to Dr. K. S. R. Swami, for information. Sd/- K. Abraham, Collector, Gaya. Copy to Range Officer, Barachatty, for information and necessary action." On 10-6-1954, the State Government sent a tele-grain to the Collector of Gaya directing that his order permitting the petitioner to go ahead with reclamation "should be withdrawn pending decision of Government in the matter". It is necessary to quote the telegram in full : "386RT. Reference your letter 2050ZA of 23rd April (I) Government desire that order issued in your letter 245 of 22nd April permitting Dr. D.S. R. Swami to go ahead with reclamation should be withdrawn pending decision of Government la the matter." 3. On behalf of the petitioner the argument was put forward that the order of the State Government dated 10-6-1954 and also the order of the Divisional Forest Officer dated 1-5-1954 were illegal and completely without jurisdiction, Mr. P. R. Das appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Collector was the only authority vested with statutory power under R. 8 to permit reclamation of land. It was contended by learned Counsel that power was not vested in the State Government under the rule, and the State Government had, therefore, no authority to order the Collector to withdraw his order, in my opinion, the argument of learned Counsel is well-founded and must prevail. It was contended by learned Counsel that power was not vested in the State Government under the rule, and the State Government had, therefore, no authority to order the Collector to withdraw his order, in my opinion, the argument of learned Counsel is well-founded and must prevail. Rule VIII of the rules framed by the State Government under Sec.32, Forest Act, is to the following effect : "No land in the said forest shall be cleared or broken for cultivation or any other purpose without the written permission of the Collector." The language of Rule VIII is negative in form. But as a matter of construction I think that the rule confers a positive power on the Collector to permit any person to clear or break land for cultivation. It is also clear that Rule VIII confers the power only upon the Collector and no other administrative authority, not even upon the State Government. In other words, the discretion is vested solely in the Collector of the district. The State Government had. therefore, no authority to interfere with the exercise of the statutory discretion; by the Collector in any particular case. The State Government is nowhere in the picture at all, and it is manifest that the order of the State Government conveyed in the telegram of 10-6-1954 is completely ultra vires and illegal. This view is borne out by the decision of the Supreme Court in -- Commr. of Police, Bombay V/s. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 (A). In that case the respondent had applied for permission to build a cinema on a site within the city of Bombay. The application was rejected by the Commissioner of Police, but the respondent applied for reconsideration of the matter. The Commissioner acting under the advice of the Cinema Advisory Committee granted the application on 16-7-1947. Subsequently under instructions from Government the Commissioner of Police sent the following communication to the respondent: "I am directed by Government to inform you that the permission to erect a cinema at the above site granted to you under the office letter dated 16-7-1947, is hereby cancelled", The respondent applied to the High Court of Bombay for an order under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, directing the Commissioner of Police, Bombay to withdraw the cancellation and to grant permission for the erection of the cinema. The High Court allowed the application and directed the Commissioner of Police "to withdraw the order of cancellation passed by nun". The Commissioner of Police appealed to the Supreme Court. It was held by Base J. that the Government of Bombay had no authority to cancel a licence once issued under the rules framed under the Police Act, and the only person vested with authority to grant or refuse a licence Was the Commissioner of Police himself. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the order of the Bombay High Court was confirmed subject to slight modification. The principle was applied by a Division Bench of this Court in a recent case -- Rambharosa Singh V/s. Govt. of the State of Bihar, AIR 1953 Pat 370 (B). It was held in this case that under the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885, as also under the rules framed under it, the State Government had no locus standi to advise the District Magistrate to withdraw the settlement of the ferry from public auction or to extend the lease in favour of the previous lessee, and further that the act of the District Magistrate in withdrawing the settlement of the tolls from public auction at the instance of the State Government was in breach of a statutory duty cast upon him by the Bengal Terries Act, 1885. In view of the principle enunciated in these authorities, it is clear that neither the State Government nor the Divisional Forest Officer had any authority to interfere with the order of the Collector passed under R. VIII of the rules under the Forest Act and the order of the State Government dated 10-6-1954 and the order of the Divisional Forest Officer dated 1-5-1954 were ultra vires and illegal. 4. The argument was addressed by the learned Government pleader that the Divisional Forest Officer had authority to prohibit the petitioner from reclaiming the land under Rules I to IV. It was contended that R. III authorised the Divisional Forest Officer to grant licenses to any inhabitant of a town or village or to any person authorising him to fell or remove trees from the forest for the purpose of trade. It was contended that R. III authorised the Divisional Forest Officer to grant licenses to any inhabitant of a town or village or to any person authorising him to fell or remove trees from the forest for the purpose of trade. Rule IV states : "No person shall cut, convert or remove from the said forest or otherwise deal with any trees, timber or other forest produce of the said forest or pasture any cattle therein except as provided in Rules I, II and III". Rules I and II are not very material. They authorise the Divisional Forest Officer to permit forest produce to be taken by villagers for their private use, or to permit pasturage for cattle by residents of neighbouring villages. The Government Pleader, however, relied upon Rules III and IV and said that even though the Collector had granted permission to the petitioner to clear up the land for cultivation under Rule VIII, the Divisional Forest Officer could prohibit the petitioner from clearing the land unless a licence was taken under the provisions of Rules III and IV for cutting timber or removing trees from the forest. I do not think that this argument has any justification. It is necessary to quote Rules III and IV in full: "III. (1) Licenses may be granted by the Divisional Forest officer- (a) to any inhabitant of a town or village in the vicinity of the said forest authorising him to take trees, timber or other produce! for his own use; or, (b) to any person, authorising him to fell or remove trees, timber or other forest produce, from the said forest for the purpose of trade; or (c) to any person authorising him to pasture cattle in the said forest. * * * IV. No person shall cut, convert or remove from the said forest or otherwise deal with any trees, timber or other forest produce of the said forest or pasture any cattle therein except as provided in Rules I, II and III". Neither Rule III nor Rule IV refers to the clearing of forest land for cultivation. Those rules only deal with cutting or removal of trees and other forest produce. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule VIII authorising him to permit any person to clear or break up land for cultivation is obviously of a much wider scope. Neither Rule III nor Rule IV refers to the clearing of forest land for cultivation. Those rules only deal with cutting or removal of trees and other forest produce. The power conferred on the Collector under Rule VIII authorising him to permit any person to clear or break up land for cultivation is obviously of a much wider scope. As a matter of construction it must be held that Rule VIII confers upon the Collector not merely the power to permit any person to clear or break up land for cultivation but also by necessary implication the power to permit any person to cut trees which is necessary or incidental to the clearing up of the land for cultivation. It is well settled as a matter of principle that a grant of statutory right necessarily implies the grant of means indispensable or necessary for the exercise of that right. Otherwise, the right conferred by Rule VIII will be illusory. If the interpretation contended for by the Government Pleader is right, then the power conferred on the Collector under Rule VIII would be completely nullified by contrary action taken by the Divisional Forest Officer under the provisions of Rules III and IV. I, therefore, consider that the argument of the learned Government Pleader is not sound and that in a case where the Collector grants permission under R. VIII, the Divisional Forest Officer has no power to interfere by virtue of Rules I to IV. It follows that the order of the Divisional Forest Officer dated 1-5-1954 is ultra vires. 5. It was also argued by Government Pleader that the right of the petitioner to the land in dispute had been extinguished under Sec.19, Bihar Act 9 of 1948. It appears from the counter-affidavit that proceeding had been taken by the State Government under this Act before the Tekari Raj Estate was notified, under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. On 6-4-1948, a notification was issued by the State Government under proviso to Sec.30(b), Bihar Act 9 of 1948. But no final notification was published under Sec.30 because the enquiries contemplated by Sections 13 to 18 had not taken place. On 6-4-1948, a notification was issued by the State Government under proviso to Sec.30(b), Bihar Act 9 of 1948. But no final notification was published under Sec.30 because the enquiries contemplated by Sections 13 to 18 had not taken place. Sec.19 of this Act states: "Rights (other than landlords rights) in respect of which no claim has been preferred under Sec.16 and of the existence of which no knowledge has been acquired by inquiry under Sec.17, shall be extinguished, unless, before the notification under Sec.30 is published, the person claiming them satisfies the Forest Settlement Officer that he had sufficient cause for not preferring such claim within the period fixed under Sec.16". The argument of the learned Government Pleader would have great force if final notification under Sec.30 had been published by the State Government; but it is the undisputed case that no final notification under Sec.30 declaring the forest to be a private protected forest had been made by the State Government. The obvious reason was that before the said notification could be issued, the estate has vested in the State Government under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act on 30-9-1952. Since the estate has vested in the State Government, the provisions of Bihar Act 9 of 1948 were no longer applicable. The State Government had, therefore, taken recourse to the Indian Forest Act, and I have already said that on 2-1-1953, a notification was issued by the Government under the proviso to Sec.29(3), Forest Act. In these circumstances, it is obvious that Sec.19 of Bihar Act 9 of 1948 has no application to the case and it is not possible to entertain the argument that the rights of the petitioner were extinguished under the provisions of that section. 6. For the reasons expressed, I hold that a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution should be issued for quashing the order of the State Government conveyed in their telegram dated 10-6-1954 to the Collector of Gaya and also the order of the Divisional Forest Officer, dated 1-5-1954 prohibiting the reclamation of the disputed land by the petitioner. In my opinion, this application must accordingly be allowed with costs. Hearing fee: Rs. 100/-. Imam, J. 7 I agree.