JUDGMENT & ORDER : DINESH MEHTA, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the Regional Forest Officer - Mr. Chandra Jeet Singh Panwar feeling aggrieved of the order dated 03.10.2017, passed by the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh. 2. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that a suit has been instituted against the Collector and SDM, by the petitioner, with the following cause-title:— ^^{ks=h; ou vf/kdkjh t;sZ pUnzthr flag iaokj] {ks=h; ou vf/kdkjh] NksVhlknMh ftyk izrkix<+ jktLFkkuA izkFkhZ cuke 1- Jh jktLFkku ljdkj t;sZ JhZ rglhynkj egksn;] NksVhlknMh 2- Jh jktLFkku ljdkj t;sZ JhZ mi[k.M+ vf/kdkjh] NksVhlknMh 3- Jh jktLFkku ljdkj t;sZ JhZ ftykdysDVj egksn;] izrkix< jkt- &foi{khx.k^^ 3. Along with the said suit, the petitioner has also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking temporary injunction against the ensuing construction of Government accommodation on the land duly alloted for said purpose. The Trial Court vide its order dated 01.04.2017 passed an injunction order. Along with the said suit, the petitioner has also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking temporary injunction against the ensuing construction of Government accommodation on the land duly alloted for said purpose. The Trial Court vide its order dated 01.04.2017 passed an injunction order. The defendants - State Government preferred an appeal against the said order, which appeal came to be allowed by learned District Judge, Pratapgarh with the following observation:— ^^bl laEcU/k esa ;g mYys[k djuk mfpr gksxk fd dksbZ Hkh vf/kdkjh lgh :i ls vius inLFkkiu ij ugha jgrk gS cfYd muds dk;kZy; o vkokl lgh gksrs gS ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa bl izdj.k esa Jh pj.kthr flag iaokj }kjk izdj.k dks futh gSfl;r ls izLrqr dj Hkwfe ij fof/kd vf/kdkj crk;k tk jgk gS tks fdlh izdkj fof/klaxr ugha gS tcfd ou foHkkx dks bl Hkwfe ij fdlh izdkj dks dksbZ fof/kd vf/kdkj o LokfeRo izkIr ugha gS ,oa ftyk dysDVj fpŸkkSMx<+ ds vkacVu vkns'k ls os fof/kd :Ik ls ck/;dj gSA izR;FkhZ ¼izkFkhZ½ dh vkSj ls ;g fdlh izdkj fl) ugh fd;k x;k gS fd fooknkLin Hkwfe ij ou foHkkx dk fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fof/kd LokfeRo gks tcfd jktLo vfHkys[kks esa ;g Hkwfe fcykuke ljdkj ds :i esa ntZ gksdj bl Hkwfe esa ls iwoZ esa lkeqnkf;d Hkou NksVhlknMh gsrq vkacVu fd;k x;k gS ,oa orZeku esa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh o rglhynkj ds vkokl gsrq Hkwfe dk vkacVu fd;k x;k gS ftuds ikl o"kZ&1968 esa rglhy o mi[k.M+ dh LFkkiuk gksus ds mijkUr ls vkokl gsrq dksbZ Hkwfe miyC/k ugha gS vkSj ftyk dysDVj }kjk fd;s x;s vkacVu ds Øe esa mDr nksuksa iz'kklfud vf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkokl fuekZ.k gsrq jkT; ljdkj ls ctV Hkh izkIr gks pqdk gSA U;k;ky; ds le{k yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk ;g Hkh tkfgj fd;k x;k gS fd bl fuekZ.k ds le; lHkh o`{kks dks cpk;k tk;sxk ,oa bruk gh ugh l?ku o`{kkjksi.k Hkh fd;k tkosxkA^^ 4. Feeling aggrieved of, rather offended by the aforesaid order dated 03.10.2017, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction. 5. Feeling aggrieved of, rather offended by the aforesaid order dated 03.10.2017, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction. 5. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner read the order impugned, out of which the following part of the order perturbed this Court:— ^^;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g dgh Li"V ugha gS fd Jh pj.kthrflag iaokj {ks=h; ou vf/kdkjh NksVhlknMh dks jkT; ljdkj }kjk vf/kd`r fd;k x;k gks fd os jkTkLFkku ljdkj ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh djus gsrq vkosnu izLrqr djsA Loa; izR;FkhZ ¼izkFkhZ½ us izkFkZuk i= esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ftyk dysDVj fpŸkkSMx<+ us vkjkth la[;k&1733 jdck 1-65 gsDVs;j esa ls 1-23 gsDVs;j Hkwfe dk vkacVu fnuakd & 28-5-2007 dks lkeqnkf;d LokLFk; dsanz NksVhlknM+h gsrq fd;k FkkA^^ 6. Hence, the Court asked the counsel for the petitioner to show decision of the State Government and authorisation, if any, for filing the suit in question and for filing the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then responded by submitting that said Mr. Chandra Jeet Singh Panwar had assured him that requisite sanction/order of appointment in his favour would be obtained. Petitioner has however issued a letter dated 30.10.2017 in his hand and signature appointing Mr. Ram Niwas Choudhary as the counsel. 8. It appears to be a classic case, when a Forest Officer has triggered legal battle, that too for protecting an illegal possession of Government land, which land admittedly never belonged to or allotted to the Forest Department. 9. Prima facie finding it to be a case of insubordination and indiscipline, this Court hetherto directs Mr. Chandra Jeet Singh Panwar to file an affidavit as to whether any approval/sanction for filing the suit in question was obtained? Particularly when the suit was against the State Government and as to whether prior permission was sought from the State Government, while filing the present writ petition. 10. This Court is also bewildered to find that said Chandra Jeet Singh Panwar has chosen to file the case at hand through Mr. Vinay Jain/Ramniwas Choudhary, instead of availing services of Additional Advocate General/Departmental Counsel, usually appearing for the Department of Forest. 11. Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Additional Advocate General is requested to assist the Court on the question aforesaid. 12. Counsel for the petitioner to supply a copy of the writ petition to Mr. Vinay Jain/Ramniwas Choudhary, instead of availing services of Additional Advocate General/Departmental Counsel, usually appearing for the Department of Forest. 11. Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Additional Advocate General is requested to assist the Court on the question aforesaid. 12. Counsel for the petitioner to supply a copy of the writ petition to Mr. Panwar within a course of day. 13. List this case on 09.11.2017, after showing name of Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Additional Advocate General in the cause-list.