JUDGMENT The petitioner operates a saw machine under a licence granted to him by respondent No. 1. Officials of the Forest Department appeared on the premises of the petitioner and seized saw machine as also the wood, under allegation of commission of forest offence. Respondent No. 2, thereafter, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 23.6.84. Notice was received by the petitioner on 25.6.84. The said notice was under S. 12 (3) (i) of the M.P. Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam 1984, demanding to show cause as to why the saw machine be not confiscated. Copy of the notice is marked as Ann. P/2. The petitioner submitted reply on 2.7.84 (Ann. P/3). The petitioner submitted the record showing that no offence as such was committed. Respondent No. 1, however, passed order dated 24.7.84. (Ann. P/5) imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred under S. 18 of the aforesaid Adhiniyam. Dissatisfied by this order as also seizure and detention of wood, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate relief. This Court passed an interim order on 20.9.84 directing that the saw machine shall be released and returned to the petitioner. In compliance of this order, the machine was returned to the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits before me as under :- (a) Order dated 24.7.84 (Ann. P/5) has been passed without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (b) Respondent No. 1 has absolutely no power to proceed under S. 18 without any application for composition. (c) Respondent No. 2 had absolutely no jurisdiction to pass order as impugned in this writ petition. Government Advocate for the respondent No. 2 submits that proper opportunity was given to the petitioner, but he is unable to satisfy me about applicability of S. 18 of the aforesaid Adhiniyam. There is nothing on record to show that any prayer for composition was made by the petitioner. However, I find that the order Ann. PIS is passed without proper hearing. In the result, I find that order (Ann. PIS) cannot be sustained in law. It is accordingly set aside with liberty to respondent No. 1 to decide the question afresh in conformity with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. Parties are directed to appear before respondent No. 1 on 2.8.94. PIS is passed without proper hearing. In the result, I find that order (Ann. PIS) cannot be sustained in law. It is accordingly set aside with liberty to respondent No. 1 to decide the question afresh in conformity with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. Parties are directed to appear before respondent No. 1 on 2.8.94. In the aforesaid proceeding, the petitioner is free to raise question of jurisdiction and also to claim return of wood seized by the Forest Authority. Order passed by this Court on 20.9.84 shall continue to be operative till the matter is finally decided at all stages. The petition is allowed with no order as to costs. Security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner after due verification.