25. One more reason for saying so is the nature of permission granted to the then Town Committee by the Forest Department. A careful reading of the proceedings of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Madras, dated 05.02.1962, will make the position clear. The said proceedings were issued after considering the proposal of the Conservator of Forest, Madurai, dated 28.11.1961, who proposed that the District Forest Officer may issue permit annually renewable levying a nominal permit fee of Rs.1/- per annum in favour of the Township Committee. It is important to note that what was the permit, which was granted to the Township Committee. The permit was pertaining to the road leading to Chitteruvi in Courtrallam reserved forest area. It is to be seen as to why such a permission was given by the Forest Department, that too at a nominal permit fee of Rs.1/- per annum. It is to improve the approach to the Chitteruvi falls to the extent that recorded right of way would permit. Therefore, the proceedings of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Madras, dated 05.02.1962, gave no right to the Township Committee to permit the people to take bath in the Chitteruvi falls and collect fees from them. The permission was only to improve the approach road to the extent that recorded right of way would permit. Thus, the entire premise based on which the petitioner has built up his case has to necessarily fall and fail. The Town Panchayat has misused the proceedings of the Chief Conservator of Forests, dated 05.02.1962, by giving a colour as if they have been given permit to control the waterfalls area and also collect fee from the general public, who come to take bath in the waterfalls. It is not clear as to why all these years, the Forest Department did not raise any objection to this action of the Town Panchayat. Therefore, the licence, which was granted to the writ petitioner by the Town Panchayat was illegal and without jurisdiction. This would be a substantial ground to reject the claim made by the Town Panchayat in their subsequent communication to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests as well as their past actions. Had the matter was brought to the notice of the appropriate authorities at an earlier point of time, it would be a fit case, where the officers, those elected representatives of the Town Panchayat, officers of the Town Panchayat and the officers of the Forest Department were liable to be departmentally proceeded. However, because of passage of time, we cannot make an autopsy in
