ORDER Arun Mishra, J. Petitioner challenges the order of cancelling the licence and confiscation of saw mill as per order Annexure I dated 14-10-1988 passed by Licensing Authority and D.F.O. North, Division Sagar, under the provisions of M.P. Kastha Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). An appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Conservator of Forests as per Annexure J passed on 15-2-1989. Another appeal preferred before the Addl. District Judge, Sagar, has also been dismissed on 20-4-1989 as per order Annexure L. Petitioner submits that saw mill was initially owned by Sardar Niranjan Singh of Khurai who sold the saw mill to the petitioner. The petitioner was issued licence for the transferred saw mill for the year 1985 to year 1988. On 14-8-1988 the Range Officer entered the premises of the saw mill of the petitioner without any search warrant and seized 10 sawn teak timber, one partly saw timber of teak and 4 round logs of teak, total 15 numbers, on the allegation that these teak logs were illegally brought from the forests and were shown as freshly felled teak timber. Seizure memo was prepared. Petitioner moved an application for supply of seizure memo, copy of which was not handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application on 16-8-1988 giving details of the transit passes by which the round teak timber in question were transported to Khurai after their purchase from Sironj Depot on 18-2-1988, 5-8-1988 and 9-84988 as per transit passes 3/333, 30/303 and 204/15. Petitioner's saw mill was not checked by the forest staff after 1-2-1987. Petitioner's signatures were obtained on Panchnama on 14-8-1988 in the presence of police force. Panchanama was also not handed over to the petitioner. The statement of the petitioner was recorded by Range Officer on 14-8-1988. In the statement the petitioner had very clearly stated that the 15 sawn and round teak timber seized were brought from the Sironj Depot under valid transit passes and these timber were entered in the stock register. Petitioner was submitting quarterly statements regularly. The statement for the period from 1-4-1988 to 30-6-1988 is as per Annexure D. The action is in the violation of section 12 of the Act. All relevant and material documents were not supplied to the petitioner. Petitioner was submitting quarterly statements regularly. The statement for the period from 1-4-1988 to 30-6-1988 is as per Annexure D. The action is in the violation of section 12 of the Act. All relevant and material documents were not supplied to the petitioner. An application Annexure E was filed by the petitioner on 14-8-1988 for supply of documents but in spite of this application no such documents were furnished to the petitioner. Large number of witnesses were examined by the Range Officer, Khurai on 14-8-1988 but copies of these statements were also not supplied to the petitioner. A show cause notice Annexure F was issued to the petitioner on 9-9-1988 as to why the saw mill of petitioner be not confiscated and the licence of which be revoked under the Act. In order to replying show cause notice petitioner had applied for copies of relevant and material documents on 14-9-1988. Only copy of seizure memo was handed over to the petitioner. No other documents were handed over to him. In spite of the demand copies of the statements were not furnished. The Licensing Authority passed an order on 15-2-1989 confiscating the saw mill of the petitioner. An enquiry was not held as required u/s 12(3) of the Act. Thus, the findings recorded are perverse. The provisions of section 12(2)(c) of the Act have been violated. Thus, the orders are bad in law and deserve to be quashed. The respondents contend that the findings arrived at are just and proper. No interference is called for by this Court. Petitioner was given copy of seizure memo and Panchnama. Petitioner did not pray to cross examine the witnesses. The statements of the witnesses had not been relied upon by the Licensing Authority. The statements given by these witnesses were not considered and for this reason no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The documents were inspected by the counsel for petitioner. Thus, the orders passed are just and proper. The matter is of commission of serious offence involving Forest produce. Shri R.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the orders have been passed under the provisions of section 12 of the Act. No enquiry was conducted by the Licensing Authority. The petitioner was not given the copies of the statements of the witnesses though they were relied upon by the Licensing Authority while passing the impugned order. Shri R.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the orders have been passed under the provisions of section 12 of the Act. No enquiry was conducted by the Licensing Authority. The petitioner was not given the copies of the statements of the witnesses though they were relied upon by the Licensing Authority while passing the impugned order. Transit passes were produced. The finding recorded that goods seized is not covered under transit passes is perverse. In any case as the documents were not supplied to the petitioner, the statements of the witnesses were recorded by Range Officer which were not supplied. The names of the persons who were members of the team, stock register etc. which were seized, had not been made available. The impugned orders are bad in law. Shri Ashok Agrawal, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents, submits that seizure memo was handed over to the petitioner and the documents were perused by the counsel for the petitioner. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by non supply of the relevant documents on the basis of which the action was initiated. The burden of proof as per section 15 of the Act is on the accused. Thus, there is no infirmity in the orders impugned. No interference is called for in the writ petition. It is clear from the perusal of the order passed by the Licensing Authority that Licensing Authority has relied upon the statements of the various witnesses which were recorded on 14-8-1988. Then offence was registered under sections 7, 9, 12, 13 and 15. The statements were recorded and for commission of the offence the action was initiated of cancelling the licence with confiscation of saw mill. In my opinion, the first requirement was to supply the copies of the statements of all the witnesses to the petitioner and all the documents which were placed before the Licensing Authority for initiating the action against the petitioner. Petitioner applied for copies of all relevant and material documents as per Annexure E on 14-9-1988. The petitioner also applied for copies of the statements of the witnesses, his own statement, enquiry report submitted by Range Officer on the basis of which the action was initiated. These documents were not supplied in spite of application being moved on that behalf. Petitioner applied for copies of all relevant and material documents as per Annexure E on 14-9-1988. The petitioner also applied for copies of the statements of the witnesses, his own statement, enquiry report submitted by Range Officer on the basis of which the action was initiated. These documents were not supplied in spite of application being moved on that behalf. In the return the respondents have surprisingly taken the stand that these statements of the witnesses were not relied upon to take action against the petitioner but the fact mentioned in the return is incorrect and falsified, bare perusal of the order passed by the Licensing Authority Annexure I. The various statements of the witnesses were recorded on 14-8-1988, findings have been approved in appeal more or less in mechanical manner without going into the evidence by the Conservator of Forest. Whatever that may be the fact remains that the statements of the witnesses were relied upon and copies of the statements were not supplied to the petitioner. Section 6 of the Act deals with grant, renewal, revocation or suspension of licence. Sub-section (5) of section 6 of the Act requires that if the licensing officer is satisfied either on a reference made to it in this behalf or otherwise that the licensee has parted, in whole or in part with his control over the saw Mill or saw pit or has otherwise ceased to operate or own such saw mill or saw pit; or the licensee has, without reasonable cause, failed to comply with any of the conditions of the licence or any direction lawfully given by the licensing officer or has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or the licensee has, in the premises of the saw mill or saw pit, wood which he is not able to account for satisfactorily and consequently which is liable for confiscation u/s 9 then without prejudice to any other penalty to which the licensee may be liable under this Act, the licensing officer may, after giving the licensee an opportunity of showing cause, revoke or suspend the licence and forfeit the sum. But in the instant case not only the licence has been revoked but saw Mill has also been confiscated in exercise of power of section 12 of the Act. But in the instant case not only the licence has been revoked but saw Mill has also been confiscated in exercise of power of section 12 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 12 provides that no order of confiscating any property shall be made under sub-section (1) unless the person from whom the property is seized and in the case the owner of such property is known, such person is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate such property; an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds for confiscation; and a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. In my opinion, though it is not specifically mentioned in Sub-section (2) of section 12 the material should also be supplied when the requirement is that grounds have to be informed, in my opinion, the supply of material on the basis of which the grounds arise and opinion has been formed is the necessary ingredient of the opportunity as contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 12 otherwise the same may be superfluous. So as to enable a person to defend himself properly it is necessary the material on the basis of which opinion has been formed should also be supplied. That having not been done in the instant case and when such material has been relied upon by the Licensing Authority without affording copy of the same to the petitioner, the order per se is illegal. The submission raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that inspection was made by the counsel, it does not appear from the return that inspection of all the documents were afforded and that cannot be in all circumstances, a substitute of supply of documents. No enquiry was conducted by the Licensing Authority and Licensing Authority acted upon the material collected by the Range Officer without supplying copy of the same to the petitioner. It has been stated in the return in para 35 that statements of the witnesses who were not cross-examined were ignored by the Conservator of Forest. The statement is also not correct as none of the witnesses were allowed to be cross examined. As a matter of fact no enquiry was conducted by the Licensing Authority. It has been stated in the return in para 35 that statements of the witnesses who were not cross-examined were ignored by the Conservator of Forest. The statement is also not correct as none of the witnesses were allowed to be cross examined. As a matter of fact no enquiry was conducted by the Licensing Authority. Whatever that may be since the relevant documents were not supplied, it is held that petitioner has been deprived of opportunity to defend properly, the respondents are directed to supply the copies of the statements and other relevant documents to the petitioner and thereafter to proceed in the matter. The orders Annexure I passed by the Licensing Authority, Annexure J passed by Conservator of Forests, and Annexure L Passed by the Addl. District Judge are quashed. Matter is remitted back to Licensingh Authority who shall proceed with the same in accordance with law. Petitioner is directed to keep himself present before the Licensing Authority on 5-8-2002. Licensing Authority is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law within 3 months from the date of appearance made by the petitioner. No fresh notice is necessary to the petitioner. In case petitioner fails to turn on 5-8-2002, it would be open to the Authority to proceed further without issuing any further notice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, costs on the parties. Final Result : Dismissed