JUDGMENT D.S. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Shri Vijay Shri Sinha, holding brief of Shri T. P. Singh, learned counsel of the petitioner and Shri Vinay Malaviya. learned standing counsel, representing the respondents.
2. The order dated 16th August, 1990 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer. Lakhimpur Kheri, respondent No. 1, a copy whereof is Annexure-5 to the petition, revoking the licence of the petitioner granted to him under the provisions of Uttar. Pradesh Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills Rules. 1978 (hereinafter called the Rules), is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The sole ground for assailing the impugned order canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to explain his conduct and safeguard his interest.
4. The requisite averments in support of the ground of attack are to be found in paragraph 14 of the petition which reads as below :
5. It is apposite to notice that the petitioner himself has not come forward to swear and file affidavit in support of the above assertions. The averment is sworn and verified by his son Shri Shyam Lal, who has filed affidavit in support of the writ petition acting as his parokar. Shit Shyam Lal has verified the averments of paragraph 14 on the basis of perusal of papers/records without disclosing the details of the papers/records. In the absence of the affidavit of the petitioner himself and details of the papers/records on the basis of which Shri Shyam Lal, the son of the petitioner has verified that no opportunity was given to the petitioner, it is difficult to give any credence to the said averments.
6. Apart from the fact that averments in paragraph 14 do not deserve any credence, a look to the Annexure-4 to the petition reveals a different story, Annexure-4 is the photostat copy of the affidavit of Shri Shyam Lal, son and parokar of the petitioner. This affidavit was sworn on 24th July, 1990. In the affidavit, it is admitted that the wood was brought to Saw Mill of the petitioner for conversion : and that the wood was in fact cut into pieces In contravention of the terms and conditions of the licence and provisions of the Rules. Once the factum of violation of the terms and conditions of the licence and provisions of Rules is admitted, there hardly remains anything which may come out after giving the opportunity, the lack of which is complained o!' by the petitioner.
7. It is no doubt true that before any adverse order is passed against anybody, he is entitled to an opportunity. This is a requirement of the principles of natural justice. But it is equally true that mere violation of any principle of natural Justice does not render an order illegal. Apart from the violation of the principle of natural justice. It has to be further pleaded and demonstrated that violation of principle of natural justice has resulted in manifest injustice. The manifest injustice is condition precedent for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of manifest injustice, the Court may decline to exercise discretionary jurisdiction, even though the order may otherwise be illegal.
8. In the instant case, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the alleged lack of opportunity to him has resulted in any prejudice to him. In the entire pleadings, there is no whisper as to what material petitioner would have placed before the relevant authority which might have compelled the authority not to pass the impugned order. Indeed, as noticed earlier, petitioner was given opportunity as is evident from the affidavit of Shri Shyam Lal. son and parokar of the petitioner.
9. For what has been stated above, in the opinion of the Court, respondent No. 1 did not commit any illegality in passing the impugned order. The impugned order is perfect and is not liable to any interference by this Court.
10. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The interim order dated 30th August, 1990 is vacated. There is no order as to costs.