JUDGMENT K. Sukumaran, J. 1. Petitioner is the owner of an estate in the Nelliampathy range. The extent of the estate is claimed to be 247.07 acres. The petitioner's husband, now no more, obtained the forest land on a lease arrangement. He had passed away on 17-9-1971. On 17-3-1975 by Ext. P1 she sought permission for construction of a bund to facilitate storage of water. The construction of the bund would necessarily obstruct the stream flowing through the reserve forest. The request was made to the Collector, when the Divisional Forest Officer intimated her that the Collector was the appropriate authority. Collector granted permission under Ext. P4 dated 15-4-1976, subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. The licence was valid only up to a period of 31-3-1977. Para.3 of Ext. P4 proceedings read as follows: "The licensee is informed that the existing channels in the Reserve Forest should not be widened, deepened or further structures put I up without obtaining previous permission from the District Collector. The temporary bund should be constructed only at the site pointed out to by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nemmara and the height and length of the bund proposed to be constructed should not be changed under any circumstances without the consent of the Divisional Forest Officer, Nemmara and District Collector. Palghat". 2. There have been subsequent renewals of the licence from time to time as is evident from Exts. P5 to P7(d). The period so extended expired on 31-3-1983. A restricted licence was then granted under Ext. P7(c) dt. 24-2-84. There was a further application for renewal on 12-3-85. Renewal was sought for a period of 5 years. The request was not granted. The petitioner approached this Court on 3-4-1985 for a writ of mandamus restraining the DFO and his subordinate Officers from "forcibly demolishing the bund put up". This Court admitted the writ petition 3-4-1985 and granted ex parte interim stay on the very same day. Though there was an attempt made by the respondent to have the stay vacated, that was unsuccessful. By order dated 29-9-1985, the writ petition was directed to be posted for hearing after one month. The writ petition could not be effectively taken up for hearing within that period. 3. The writ petition was amended by CMP No. 15217/85 filed on 31-5-1985. By that amendment, the order Ext. By order dated 29-9-1985, the writ petition was directed to be posted for hearing after one month. The writ petition could not be effectively taken up for hearing within that period. 3. The writ petition was amended by CMP No. 15217/85 filed on 31-5-1985. By that amendment, the order Ext. P10 passed by the District Collector on 8-5-1985 declining the continuation of the licence was challenged. That order referred to the fact that the DFO, Nemmara had reported that the bund had acted adversely on many issues related to forest. An Advocate Commissioner made a report regarding the features of the property, the stream and the bund. Among others, it is reported that the stagnation of water would not cause any damage to the forest. The Commissioner observed that he could see that the flow of water is almost equal in all the stream marked as A, B, C & F. This was in the background of a statement made by the Forest Range Officer that during summer the stream would dry up. The forest Officials have pointed out to the Commissioner that beyond the border of the petitioner's estate there was wild life sanctuary; having an area of 300 sq. meters. 4. The short question for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to command the Government and its Officers to continue the licence granted for the construction of the bund. No legal right was relied on to compel such continuance of a licence of limited duration granted by the Government. The documents produced by the petitioners would themselves indicate the limited duration of the licence granted and the conditions contained therein. Even under the provisions of the original permission granted, the construction could be modified from time to time depending on the circumstances; and the Government could revoke the licence without any specific reasons. Condition No. 9 made it obligatory on the part of the licensee to remove the bund within 6 months from the date of revoking the licence. In the counter affidavit it has been pointed out that the petitioner had, as a matter of fact, constructed two bunds in the reserve forest, and that she had "deliberately and mischievously concealed from the Hon'ble High Court the fact of having constructed the second bund" In Ext. P7(c) dated 24-2-1984, the renewal was subject to the report of the Divisional Forest Officer, Nemmara. Para.4 of Ext. P7(c) dated 24-2-1984, the renewal was subject to the report of the Divisional Forest Officer, Nemmara. Para.4 of Ext. P7(c) refers to the conditions for such renewal. The conditions are: "The flow of water should not be stopped by constructing bunds or mini dams. The water source should not be diverted completely. There should not be any undue damage to the down stream people." This in term made that the licensee had no right to continue the bund, if any, in the stream. What had been granted under Ext. P7(d) dated 25-3-1985 was only the extension of validity of the licence for one more year which bad been granted up to 31-3-1984. It is, therefore, clear that after 31-3-1985 the petitioner did not have any right to construct bund or mini dams. These facts are highlighted in the counter affidavit. It is pointed out that the water from stream is very essential for the survival of the wild life in the adjoining reserve forest area, and the bunds cannot be allowed to obstruct the stream any more. The necessity for removal of bunds from the streams in the reserve forest in the context of the establishment of the wild life sanctuary is again emphasised in the counter affidavit. It is stated: "Now it is very essential for the fulfillment of the objects of forest and wild life Conservation to revoke and remove such bunds from the stream in the reserve forest." 5. The details of the unauthorised and illegal construction of the bund on the eastern side of the estate is also referred to in the counter affidavit The bund prevents the further flow of water down the stream and causes hardship to wild life, it is pointed out. The existence of such a bund had been noticed and the forest officials had initiated action in the matter. It is pointed out that it was at this stage, that the petitioner approached this Court and got the interim order referred, to above. 6. The action of the respondents has to be appreciated in the background of the Constitutional Provisions introduced under the Constitution (Forty second Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 3-1-1977. Art.48A reads: "Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life: --The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country". Art.48A reads: "Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life: --The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country". Similarly under Art.51A(g), it shall be the fundamental duty of every citizen of India "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures". The growing awareness about the importance of forests had its influence on the forest officials concerned. The files made available by learned Government Pleader, clearly indicate a refreshing attitude on the part of the forest officials who dealt with the matter during 1984-85. Shri P. Prasada Babu IFS in his communication dated 18-1-1984 had indicated the necessity of imposing conditions while renewing the licences. The construction of bunds or mini dams has been positively objected to in that communication. On 26-3-1985, the Divisional Forest Officer stated that the licence could not be continued any more as it is acting adversely on many issues relating to forest The District Collector was. by that communication, requested to cancel the existing licences and not to entertain any application for renewal in future. The Chief Conservator of Forests (Vigilance) forwarded to the District Collector on 30-3-1985 a letter addressed by him to the Agricultural Production Commissioner. The fact that the Chief Conservator of Forests (Vigilance) had inspected the bund/dam on 25-3-1985 is specifically referred to therein. He had given instructions to the Divisional Forest Officer to take necessary steps to remove the obstruction of the flow of stream. Para.3 of that communication is particularly relevant and is extracted below. XXX 7. In the light of the materials available, there cannot be any doubt whatever that the continuance of the dam, had been found by the forest officials to be injurious to the wild life sanctuary and detrimental to the interests of the Government. If on the basis of such materials, the District Collector had declined to renew the licence, the action cannot be complained of, at all. There is little ground to interfere with the proceedings of the Collector Ext. P10. The prayer for quashing Ext. P10 has, therefore, to be declined. 8. If the licence, is revoked, the petitioner is bound to remove the bund or any other structure existing in the stream. There is such an obligation even under the original grant. There is little ground to interfere with the proceedings of the Collector Ext. P10. The prayer for quashing Ext. P10 has, therefore, to be declined. 8. If the licence, is revoked, the petitioner is bound to remove the bund or any other structure existing in the stream. There is such an obligation even under the original grant. Even otherwise, when the licence has terminated, no further obstruction to the flow of water in a stream in the reserve forest can be allowed. It is well known that such directions are necessary for the proper sustenance of the reserve forest and the feeding of the rivulets and rivers. Larger public interests have to be conserved in such contexts. A profit for a private entrepreneur cannot get predominance over such larger public interest. 9. The opinion expressed by the Advocate Commissioner on matters on which he could not give any expert view, can in the circumstances, have only a limited role in such a context. Even assuming that the construction of the bund would not cause any damage to the wild life sanctuary or the river or to the reserve forest (a view which is not supported by any material or expert opinion and which I am disinclined to accept and act upon) that will not compel the Government to continue the licence, if such continuance is felt to be injurious to the wild life sanctuary and of the reserve forest. 10. There is a complaint that Ext. P10 was passed without a local inspection. There is no substance in that contention. The existence of the bund is not disputed. A local inspection by itself will not be helpful in evaluating the injurious effect of the dam on the reserve forest or on the stream formation or on the cumulative effects of such impounding of water on the wild life sanctuary. These are matters essential for assessment by the forest department Not only the Divisional Forest Officer but also the Chief Conservator of Forests had a local inspection of the area. Even the relevant photographs had been forwarded to the Secretary to Government by the Chief Conservator of Forests. It was copy of that letter that had been already considered by the District Collector before passing Ext. P10. Ext. P10 cannot be invalidated in such circumstances by a writ court. 11. Even the relevant photographs had been forwarded to the Secretary to Government by the Chief Conservator of Forests. It was copy of that letter that had been already considered by the District Collector before passing Ext. P10. Ext. P10 cannot be invalidated in such circumstances by a writ court. 11. Arguments were advanced based on two sections, S.22 and 24 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. The sections have no application to the facts of the case. S.22 only indicates the legislative policy to protect reserve forest even against official indiscretion that may happen in the course of administration. For over a century, the policy of the Governments has been to protect the reserve forest with extreme care. Even roads passing through forest would not be treated as public highway. (See A. Transport Co. v. Divnl. Forest Officer, AIR 1959 MP 224 ) Reserve forest, had been held to be the property of the Government, to be held for public purposes, and to be administered in such a way as to ensure the greatest amount of benefit to the public and not to enrich a particular category of persons to the detriment of other citizens. (See Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1973 All. 37 .) The duty of the Conservator to make frequent tours of inspection and a mandatory duty to visit once a year as many of the forests under his control as is possible and his duty to pay particular attention to the intruding roads, buildings and other works, had been emphasised in the Forest Manual. (See Forest Manual Vol. I, 1950 Edition, Page 32). Even a permission granted by the Ran e Officer would not be of any avail in the background of a provision like S.22. (See Usuet Khasia v. Range Officer, Jirimukh, AIR 1958 Manipur 31 ) When Ext. P4(a) dated 25-9-1972 is taken as an authorisation under S.22 the conditions contained therein also have to be reckoned. It is obligatory thereunder for the Collector, the authorised officer, to consult the forest officials concerned and to consider their views before such permits are issued or renewed. The impugned order has been issued after such consultation of the forest officials and considering the views put forward by them. Ext. P4(a), the Government Order passed in 1972 visualised issue of uniform rules applicable throughout Kerala in relation to the permission to be granted under S.22. The impugned order has been issued after such consultation of the forest officials and considering the views put forward by them. Ext. P4(a), the Government Order passed in 1972 visualised issue of uniform rules applicable throughout Kerala in relation to the permission to be granted under S.22. No such rules have been brought to the notice of the Court. This would imply that no action has been taken in the matter for the last 14 years. If that be so, the Government may consider necessary action at least at this stage. This writ petition would have served a purpose, if it prompts the Government to gather the threads left off in 1972 and weave a pattern of uniform rules as visualised years back.) The legislative policy under S.22 subserves public good. S.22 is, therefore, of no help whatever to the petitioner. 12. S.24 reads as follows: "Power to stop ways and watercourse in Reserved forest. The Chief Conservator may, from time to time, with the previous sanction of the Government stop any public or private way or watercourse in a Reserved Forest, provided that a reasonable convenient substitute for the way or watercourse so stopped already exists or has been provided or constructed in lieu thereof." This section corresponds to S.25 of Act 16 of 1927. That Section has received judicial interpretation. As has been pointed out, the section presupposes the existence of public rights or way or water course, In the present case, there is no such pre existing public or private watercourse in the reserved forest. The licence is limited in point of time, and subject to the conditions as noted above. That does not create a right of water course in the reserved forest. 13. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. 14. The conduct of the petitioner in suppressing material facts as referred to in the counter affidavit had been noted earlier. This should have its impact not only in the manner in which the discretion of the court has to be exercised but also in relation to the order relating to costs. Having regard to the circumstances, I would direct the petitioner to pay costs to the respondents with Advocate fee Rs. 500/-.