JUDGMENT In this petition filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is assailing the order passed by State Government on 31.3.98 (Annexure P-9) whereby the appellate order passed by Conservator of Forests, Indore has been quashed and respondent No. 4 herein M/s. Parasram and Brothers has been directed to be given licence for operating its two saw machines situated on Kh. No. 137/2. The main grievance and contention of the petitioner is that this order could not have been passed by the Under Secretary of the State Government as he was neither competent nor was having any jurisdiction to entertain any such prayer made by respondent No. 14. It is not in dispute that the matter is governed by the provisions of M.P. Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984. Factual matrix of the case is not really required to be mentioned in this case. Against the order passed by D.F.O. whereby the petitioner's saw machine was directed to be confiscated and the application for renewal was rejected; similarly the application of respondent No. 4 for renewal of licence for its two saw machines was also rejected, both parties feeling aggrieved by the said order preferred appeals under Ss. 11 and 12 of the Adhiniyam of 1984. Conservator of Forests, heard both the appeals simultaneously. By a composite order passed by the Conservator of Forests on 27.12.1997 the appeal preferred by respondent No. 4 herein was rejected, whereas the appeal preferred by petitioner was partially allowed. The order of confiscation of saw machine has been maintained but the fine of Rs. 5,000/- has been quashed. Against this order the present petitioner has preferred an appeal under S. 12(4) of the Adhiniyam of 1984 before the learned Sessions Judge, Indore, which I have been told, is still pending. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Conservator of Forests, it appears, that respondent No.4 brought all these facts to the notice of Under Secretary, Forest Department, Govt. of M.P. Bhopal. The Under Secretary passed the impugned order without mentioning the provision under which he had exercised this right. By the said order as mentioned above he has granted licence to respondent No. 4 with regard to saw machines to be operated from Kh. No. 237/2. of M.P. Bhopal. The Under Secretary passed the impugned order without mentioning the provision under which he had exercised this right. By the said order as mentioned above he has granted licence to respondent No. 4 with regard to saw machines to be operated from Kh. No. 237/2. Shri Ahiwasi appearing for respondent No. 4 candidly admitted that there is no specific provision in the Adhiniyam of 1984 under which any further appeal or revision could have been preferred before the Under Secretary. However, he submitted that on bringing all these facts and infirmities in the order of the D.F.O. as also of the Conservator of Forests, the Under Secretary thought it fit that principles of natural justice having been violated it would be a fit case where respondent No.4 should be granted the necessary relief. I am afraid, as long as provisions of Adhiniyam of 1984 are in force, no such power could have been exercised by the Under Secretary. He has indeed transgressed the powers conferred on him by allowing the respondent No.4 to run the saw mill. This Adhiniyam of 1984 has been enacted with an intention to make provisions for regulating in the public interest, the establishment and operation of saw mills and saw pits and trade of sawing for the protection and conservation of forests and the environment. Section 11 of the Adhiniyam deals with Appeal; Section 12 deals with confiscation of saw mill etc. No second appeal against the order passed by Conservator of Forests is provided in the Adhiniyam. No revision can also be preferred by an aggrieved party against the order of Conservator of Forests. Thus, the Under Secretary could not have exercised any power which is not conferred on him under the provisions of Adhiniyam of 1984. Thus, on this ground alone I find that Annexure P-9 dated 31.3.1998 cannot be sustained in law. The same is hereby quashed. It may also be mentioned here that respondent No.4 had preferred W.P. No. 96 of 1998, in this Court challenging the order passed by Conservator of Forests, but was pleased to withdraw the said petition on 16.4.98. I had called for the said record and have ascertained this fact myself. Respondent No.4 was also not able to point out any specific provision under which the Under Secretary of Forest Department could have conferred the jurisdiction on himself in passing the impugned order. I had called for the said record and have ascertained this fact myself. Respondent No.4 was also not able to point out any specific provision under which the Under Secretary of Forest Department could have conferred the jurisdiction on himself in passing the impugned order. Thus, looking the matter from all angles I find that the impugned order cannot be upheld. The same is hereby quashed. Parties to bear their own costs.