cancellation of the licence, with further direction not to pursue with his saw mill. It further appears that after cancellation of the licence on a raid conducted in the saw mill of the petitioner, seisum woods were found, which were contrary to the provision and as such, the seizure order was passed. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner has taken a plea that due to ailment, he could not pursue the authority for renewal of the licence. In support of his claim regarding his ailment, he has also produced a medical certificate. The date of medical certificate also shows that prior to the expiry of the licence, there was no such ailment. No explanation to this was given before the authority concerned. Thereafter, the learned appellate authority by a detailed reason discussing each and every point has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. On perusal of both the orders i.e. order of the licensing authority as well as appellate authority, the Court is satisfied that no illegality has been committed. In the counter affidavit also, a stand was taken that before cancelling the licence, the petitioner was repeatedly noticed. Such fact has been stated in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit. Ofcourse, no rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed, but at the time of hearing, orally it was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was issued, which was not reflected in the order of the licensing authority.
