ORDER : Biswanath Rath, J. 1. Heard Shri S.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri R.N. Nayak, learned counsel for the sole opposite party. 2. Assailing the order passed by the lower appellate Court under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 hereinafter in short be called as "Act, 1972", reversing the order passed by the original authority, Shri S.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate taking this Court to the definition chapter of the Orissa Forest Act,. 1972, submitted that Laterite stone since includes definition of the forest produce, the lower appellate court did not have the legal exercise involving the dispute involved herein and thus arrived at wrong and illegal impugned order. It is, in the above premises, taking this Court to the definition chapter involving the provision at Section 2 of the Act, 1972, Shri S.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the illegal impugned judgment vide Annexure-3 should be interfered with and set aside. 3. Shri R.N. Nayak, learned counsel for the sole opposite party, on the other hand, taking this Court to the notice involving the offence involved herein as available at page 10 & 11 to the writ petition, submitted that for the charging of the offence under the provision of the Orissa Timber and other forest produce Transit Rules, 1980 hereinafter in short be called as "Rules, 1980", the definition of the forest produces in the Rules, 1980 has to be taken into account. For the original authority not considering the matter in right prospective and the appellate authority deciding the matter remaining within the provision of the Rules, 1980, Shri R.N. Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment by the lower appellate authority. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and looking to the notice involving the issue, this Court finds, the petitioner has been charged for having committed an offence under the Rules, 1980. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and looking to the notice involving the issue, this Court finds, the petitioner has been charged for having committed an offence under the Rules, 1980. Looking to the definition chapter and the involvement of the Laterite stone involved herein, this Court finds, the Laterite stone has been kept away from the definition chapter of the Rules, 1980 and for no inclusion of the Laterite stone within, the definition chapter of the Rules, 1980 this Court finds, there has been right consideration of the dispute involved herein by the lower appellate court requiring no interference in the same by this Court. 5. Resultantly, this writ petition stands dismissed for having no merit.