JUDGMENT: Gokulakrishnan, J.- The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. He filed the writ petition praying to call for the records of the District Forest Officer, Nilgiris relating to the cancellation of Form II permitt for transport of timber and firewood issued to the appellant and to quash the same as illegal. 2. The appellant has alleged that he has purchased timber and firewood of various descriptions from respondents 4 to 9 whose lands are situated in the Nilgiris Hills. After purchasing for cutting the timber and taking them away, the appellant applied for Form II permits and was transporting the timber and firewood. One of such permits for transporting timber was valid until 30th September, 1972 and the permit for transporting firewoad was valid upto 31st March, 1973. All of a sudden, according to the appellant herein, the first respondent cancelled the Form II permit and thereby disabled the appellant herein from transporting the cut timber and firewood. According to the appellant he is lawfully entitled to transport the timber and firewood which he has purchased from respondents 4 to 9 and the cancellation of the Form II permits without any notice to the appellant herein is violative of the principles of natural justice, Immediately after the cancellation, the appellant has approached this Court by way of a writ and has got an order of stay and injunction restraining the third respondent herein from removing the timber and firewood. The appellant has further submitted that the persons who have sold the timber and firewood to him have not taken steps to cancel the permit and it is the alleged mandate-bolder who has done the same and as such it has no effect at all. 3. The first respondent in his counter-affidavit has, inter alia, stated that the owners of the patta lands from whose lands the timber and firewood have been cut have requested the first respondent to cancel the permit issued in Form II and they have also stated that no further Form No. II permit should be issued in favour of the appellant herein and that is why Form No. II permit was cancelled. According to the first respondent the proper remedy for the appellant is to file an independent suit for appropriate relief and he cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the first respondent the proper remedy for the appellant is to file an independent suit for appropriate relief and he cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that the appellant is not the owner of the produce and also of the land and as such he has no right to ask for Form No. II permit. Finally the first respondent contended that the right over the produce itself was cancelled by the persons who gave the right and hence the question of issuing a show cause notice by the first respondent herein does not at all arise and that the appellant should take action against the owners of the estate and not against the respondents. It was further submitted that the cancellation of the permit was in strict compliance with the Rules in force and upon the strength of the relevant records and was not in any way illegal. With these averments, the first respondent prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The learned single Judge of this Court by his order dated 15th December, 1976, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the period of the permit was already over and that the appellant has to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil Court for effective and efficacious remedy and not the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has come forward with the present appeal. 5. Mr. C. Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that inasmuch as Form No. II permit was issued in favour of the appellant herein, the cancellation of the same without notice to him is violative of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further submitted that the property in the timber and firewood has been sold lawfully in favour of the appellant herein and as such the cancellation of Form No. II permit to remove these goods is against all canons of natural justice. According to the learned counsel the third respondent has absolutely no right in the properties purchased by the appellant herein and that the first respondent has acted illegally in cancelling the permit on the letter sent by a mandate-holder of the land owners. Mr. According to the learned counsel the third respondent has absolutely no right in the properties purchased by the appellant herein and that the first respondent has acted illegally in cancelling the permit on the letter sent by a mandate-holder of the land owners. Mr. K. R. Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents herein submitted that as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968, the appellant is only an agent of the owners of the land and inasmuch as the owners of the land have written a letter asking the first respondent to cancel the Form No. II permit and have also requested the first respondent not to issue any further Form No. II permits in favour of the appellant herein, the first respondent has correctly cancelled the licence and if at all the appellant has any grievance he can seek his remedy through the civil Court for necessary relief and damages against those who have injured him. Mr. Sekhar representing Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent adopts the argument of Mr. Natarajan learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents and submits that they have lawfully come into possession of the timber and firewood which have been sold to them by the other respondents. 6. We have carefully gone through the records in this case and also the pleadings of the respective parties. It is clear from the records that the District Forest Officer, Nilgiris in his Reference No. 14973/1972-J, dated 22nd August, 1972, has cancelled the Form No. II permit issued in the name of the appellant stating that the owners of the Estate from whose Estate they fell the trees have requested him to cancel the permit issued under Form No. II in favour of the appellant herein. Mr. Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 brought to our notice rule 3 of the Rules called the “Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968”. These Rules were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 35 and 36of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and came into force in the year 1968. Mr. Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 brought to our notice rule 3 of the Rules called the “Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968”. These Rules were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 35 and 36of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and came into force in the year 1968. Rule 3 (iii) reads as follows: “In the case of timber from private lands, markets or depot in the district and in the case of subsequent movement of imported timber referred to in sub- rule (ii), the permit shall be in Form No. II and shall be in print. The permits in that form shall, on application, be supplied by the Range Officer, or by any Revenue Officer not below the rank of Revenue Inspector having jurisdiction on payment of a fee calculated at the rate of Re. 1.00 per form. No other permits shall be used: Provided that Foresters may issue Form No. II permits for removal of firewood from patta lands, subject to the condition that they may issue such permits for not more than two cart lands at a time and not more than ten cart lands in a month in respect of the some individual, on production of a certificate of ownership of his patta lands issued by appropriate revenue authority”. Reading these rules Mr. Natarajan further submitted that Form No. II permit can be issued only to the owner of patta land or to his nominee or grantee. Whatever may be the right of the appellant in respect of the trees standing on those patta lands, Form No. II permit was issued only on the letter given by the owner of the patta land in favour of the appellant herein. On 5th November, 1970, respondents 4, 5, 7 and 9 have addressed the District Forest Officer, Nilgiris Forest Division, Ootacamund requesting him to pass necessary Form No. II permits for the transport of produce of the trees in the name of Western Indian Timbers, Mettupalayam. Accordingly we find that such permits were issued starting from 26th November, 1970, in favour of the Western Indian Timbers, Mettupalayam. The records produced further make it clear that the persons who have sold the timber to the appellant have registered their objections for the issue of Form II permits in favour of the appellant herein before the District Forest Officer, Nilgiris. The records produced further make it clear that the persons who have sold the timber to the appellant have registered their objections for the issue of Form II permits in favour of the appellant herein before the District Forest Officer, Nilgiris. Finally, on 20th April, 1972, the owners of the land who are some of the respondents herein have clearly and categorically stated that they have sold the timber and firewood in favour of the third respondent herein and have requested the District Forest Officer, Nilgiris North Division, Ootacamund to grant the necessary permits to 3rd respondent for transport of timber and firewood in all species lying un-removed in the field and also obtainable from the un-felled trees in the survey fields in the Estate, since they have sold all of them to the third respondent herein. On a reading of these letters, it can be spelt out that Form No. II permit is granted either to the owner of the patta lands or to his nominee or agent. If that be so, there is no question of issuing any notice to the appellant herein before such permit is cancelled inasmuch as the owners of the patta lands themselves have requested the first respondent to cancel the permit. The proviso to rule 3 no doubt supports such an argument advanced by Mr. Natarajan. But we refrain from giving any final opinion as regards the Interpretation advanced by Mr. Natarajan on this rule 3 (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968, since the writ appeal can be disposed of on other grounds. 7. Mr. C. Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in support of his contention regarding the failure of natural justice since no notice had been issued before the concellation of the permit in favour of the appellant, cited the decision reported in Babu ram v. Zila Parishad1 In this decision the Supreme Court has held: “When an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant he should be required to pursue that remedy and not to invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of a statutory remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ. It is true that the existence of a statutory remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ. But, the existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs and where such a remedy exists it will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a writ petition unless there are good grounds there for. But it should be remembered that the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies before a writ is granted is a rule of self-imposed limitation, a rule of policy, and discretion rather than a rule of law”. Before dealing with this decision, we can also refer to the decision cited by Mr. Rajan, which is reported in P. B. Reddy v. State of Mysore1 In this decision, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the legality of issuing writs even in cases where the period for the permit is over. Quoting this decision, Mr. Rajan submitted that even if the period of the permit is over as on date, there is no difficulty in issuing the writ so that the appellant will be in a position to renew the same and remove the timber and firewood that are lying on the patta lands. As far as the decision in Baburam v. Zila Parishad2 is concerned, we are afraid that the same cannot be quoted to support the contention of the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this case it is clear that the owners of the timber and firewood who have sold them have written letters to the first respondent requesting him to cancel the Form II permit issued in favour of the appellant stating that they have sold the timber and firewood to the third respondent herein. The appellant has to establish not only his right to have the form II permit but also his proprietary right to those goods. Prima facie the appellant may have a strong case to agitate his right over the timber and firewood. Nevertheless, it is a disputed question of fact which can be decided only on letting in evidence. If that be so, the effective and efficacious remedy will only be by way of a suit and not through writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nevertheless, it is a disputed question of fact which can be decided only on letting in evidence. If that be so, the effective and efficacious remedy will only be by way of a suit and not through writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant oan have the remedy of getting damages against the owners of the timber if he makes out a case that injury has been caused to him by the action taken by the respondents herein. For all these reasons we do not consider that the decision in Baburam v. Zila Parishad2, will in any way support the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 8. As regards the decision in P.B. Reddy v. State of Mysore1, it is clear from the facts of the case that before the period of licence had elapsed the party in that case was able to get the benefits under that licence and that is why the Supreme Court was able to direct the grant of licence for the unexpired period. But, the facts of the present case are completely different. The permit period of Form II permits has come to an end on 30th September, 1972 and 31st March, 1973 respectively. According to Mr. Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the Forest Department all the trees have been carried away by the third respondent subsequent to the disposal of the writ petition since there was absolutely no stay or injunction while the writ appeal was pending before this Court. 9. Thus, from the discussion we have made above it is clear that any writ issued as at present will be futile inasmuch as the time granted in the permits has lapsed long back. Further as we have already, observed the effective and efficacious remedy for the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the present case will be by invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for appropriate relief and not by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge of this Court has correctly observed on the above lines and has dismissed the writ petition. We are in complete agreement with the said observations and findings of the learned Single Judge and as such, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. R. S. ----- Writ appeal dismissed.