A DFO’s order cannot be invalidated solely because the MOU identifies the Ranger as competent.

The petitioners operated the Dharampani Eco Tourism Resort under a Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 03.09.2025.

By order dated 24.09.2026, the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) directed them to vacate the resort within one month and hand over its management to the Joint Forest Management Committee, citing alleged violations of the MOU.

The petitioners challenged the order, arguing that only the concerned Ranger could act on an alleged breach.

The State maintained that the DFO, as the Ranger’s superior, could intervene and that the petitioners had received an opportunity to respond before the order was made.

1. Whether the DFO could pass the order terminating the petitioners’ management and directing them to vacate the resort, despite their contention that the concerned Ranger was the competent authority under the MOU.

2. Whether the order could be challenged on the ground that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity to be heard.

The Court identified no statute or precedent as the basis for its decision.

It considered Clause 6 of the MOU, which, as described by the State, provided for termination on one month’s notice and for immediate termination in the event of violation of applicable rules.

The Court held that the order could not be faulted solely because it was made by the DFO rather than the concerned Ranger, since the DFO was the Ranger’s superior authority.

The Court reviewed Clause 6 of the MOU, the notice issued to the petitioners, and their reply.

It found that the petitioners had been afforded an opportunity of hearing.

On the authority question, it accepted that the DFO was superior to the concerned Ranger and rejected the argument that the order was invalid merely because it was not made by the Ranger.

The Court did not determine whether the alleged violations were established or otherwise assess the merits of the termination.

It expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.