AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Y. Venkatachalam, J.—Invoicing Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners herein have filed the present writ petition seeking
for a writ of declaration, declaring that the: Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 as unconstitutional, void and ultra vires the
constitution of India, and for a further declaration that the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 and the rules made thereunder
will not apply to fuel trees and others trees grown/cultivated by the Petitioners in their own land as part of their plantation and intended for the
purpose of utilisation as fuel in the manufacture of tea and for a declaration that the Petitioners need not obtain any permit, consent or licence from
the State Government or any of its authorities for felling, transporting or using as fuel trees specifically grown by them in their own
Estates/Plantations and intended to be used by them as fuel for the manufacture of tea or for any industrial or domestic use in connection with the
Tea Industry and for such other further or other orders.
In support of the writ petition, the Petitioners herein have filed! an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced
them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the petition as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the Respondents, a
counter affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately they have requested this
Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.
This matter was posted on 3.8.2000 for final hearing in the list of this Court. When the matter was called, it was represented on behalf of the
learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner on record that there is a direction to hear this matter alongwith W.P. No. 12994/93. But a perusal of
the recofds clearly goes to show that no such order has been passed either by the Acting Chief Justice or by the Regular Chief Justice or by any
brother Judges of this Court. Then on behalf of the Petitioners adjournment was asked for. Refusing the same, this Court asked them to argue the
matter. But it was represented on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the matter may be decided on merits. That being so it is also
significant to note that on behalf of the Respondents also, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) did not appear and there was no
representation for him. Only Govt., Advocate (writs) was present. This Court put a question to him as to whether he is prepared to argue the
matter. He stated that he is not prepared to argue the matter on behalf of the Government Pleader (Forest). In view of the above facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the clear view that it is a fit case where the matter can be decided on merits.
I have also perused the contents of the affidavit and the counter affidavit together with all other relevant material documents available on record
in the form of typed set of papers.
In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only point that arises for 2000 W.L.R. 53 consideration is, as to whether there are any
valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not.
The brief facts of the case of the Petitioner as seen from the affidavit are as follows: The first 1st Petitioner which is a registered company owns
Pachaimallai, Pannimade, Uralikal, Velonie and Valparai Estates situated in the Annamalai Hills Village in Valparai Taluk Coimbatore District. All
these estates except Valparai Estate, have their respective tea factories for processing the tea leaf harvested from the Estates and the Valparai
Estate has a coffee pulping factory. In this writ petition they have challenged the validity of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act,
1955 since the same interferes with the fundamental rights of the Petitioners to carry on cultivation and manufacture of Tea grown in its tea estates.
In particular the cutting of fuel trees in tea estates situated in hill areas is attempted to be prohibited unless the prior permission of the District
Committee constituted u/s 2A of the Act, is obtained. If the fuel trees are not cut for obtaining firewood for manufacture of Tea, that would result in
the manufacturing operations almost coming to a standstill and there would be a serious loss of production of tea which is one of the major foreign
exchange earners for the country. The plantations of tea and coffee crops first started in Anamalai Hills village in the then Pollachi Taluk,
Coimbatore District from 1900 onwards. Between 1920-1930 the lands in question were converted into ryotwari tenure by an order of
assignment made by the Government in favour of the planting companies. The 1st Petitioner has accordingly raised one of the largest blocks of tea
plantations, in the aforesaid estates except in Valparai where the 1st Petitioner has raised coffee and cardamom. The extent of tea area in
Anamalais comes to 1574.64 hectares and while the extent of coffee and cardamom areas in the said Valparai Estate comes to 661.12 hectares
and 187.56 hectares respectively. For administrative convenience, the 1st Petitioner''s plantations are grouped into 5 estates as aforesaid subject
to change or re-grouping from time to time as required. Such estates have been established according to convenience and suitability of land and
they are utilised for tea plantations as a whole and fuel and other ancillary plants are not set apart for each estate. Roads, communications and
other service systems have also to be developed to preserve the entire area as a whole. The 1st Petitioner is accordingly carrying on an integrated
and inter dependent activity of growing and manufacturing of tea in its tea plantations and also growing and processing of coffee and cardamom in
its Valparai Estates. The 1st Petitioner needs a continuous and steady supply of firewood mainly for manufacture of tea in its tea factories in the
said estate. The production and manufacture of tea is a continuous process. The tea plucked has to be promptly transported to the factory and
manufactured without delay. This is the reason why the 1st Petitioner requires a constant and regular supply of fire-wood. Further, considering the
extent of the 1st Petitioner''s tea plantations and the fact that they are situated in an isolated area it is absolutely necessary for the Petitioner to rely
on its own firewood supply and it is not practical or desirable to depend upon any other source of supply. Therefore, to meet its requirements the
1st Petitioner has raised within the said estates Eucalyptus trees for captive consumption within the estates for manufacture of tea. The 1st
Petitioners estates in Anamalais alone produce approximately 5.3 million kilograms of tea annually and for this alone the first Petitioners aforesaid
estates will require an aggregate of 21200 cubic metres of firewood, apart from firewood required for the supply to workers for domestic use. For
the manufacture of 1kg of tea, 0 004 cubic meters of firewood is required. The yield from a Hectare of Eucalyptus plantation would be only
around 300 cubic meters. The extent of the total fuel plantations raised by the Petitioner being only 471 hectares, it is hardly sufficient to meet the
firewood requirements of the Petitioner. The fuel plantations raised by the Petitioner form an integral part of the Petitioner''s tea plantations. By
having self-generated source of energy namely wood fuel the Petitioner could also avoid use of furnace oil saving large amount of foreign exchange
to the country. With that in view, it has been the 1st Petitioner''s policy to avoid use of furnace oil and use only self-generated energy by way of
raising fuel plantations. Thus the 1st Petitioner for its entire operations in South India was able to avoid the use of about 34 million litres of furnace
oil thereby saving foreign exchange to the tune of 14 crores every year. Eucalyptus trees planted are mature for felling after about 10 years from
planting or coppicing in 3 cycles. Further, all these Eucalyptus plantations were raised on barren and rocky lands available with the 1st Petitioner
where nothing else could normally grow. It is their case that the 1st Petitioner company having been granted ryotwari patta in respect of the lands
owned and cultivated by it is the owner of all trees, specially grown therein a. Energy Plantations in such lands and the same will be their property
and will be free to use the same for purposes of the business carried on by its and any unreasonable restriction placed thereon will be
unconstitutional and void, illegal, and not binding on the Petitioner. It is also their case that although the authorities were giving permission to the 1st
Petitioner to extract firewood for its own requirements, of late, they have been raising untenable contentions and putting forth obstructions for
felling the fuel trees raised by the company for the purposes aforesaid. The forest officials have also been taking the view that for felling of such
trees grown by the company for firewood requirements, the permission of the District Forest Committee is required. Though the Petitioner''s stand
was that no such permission was required for felling the fuel trees grown by it, in view of the coercive steps threatened against the 1st Petitioner,
they made applications to the Forest Committee for permission to cut those trees to avoid any coercive steps. However those applications were
filed without prejudice to the 1st Petitioner company''s contentions as aforesaid namely that no such permission is required under the Act for felling
its own fuel plantations raised by intensive agricultural operations. Experiencing inordinate delay in getting the permission, the 1st Petitioner had to
approach the Government of Tamil Nadu with various representations and appeals. The Government finally directed the 2nd Respondent by G.O.
Ms. No. 395 dated 9.6.1989 to issue the necessary permission. Still the 2nd and 3rd Respondents were delaying the disposal of the Applications.
Although for the years 1982 to 1992 the Petitioner had applied for felling of Eucalyptus trees from a total extent of 276.40 hectares, permission
has hitherto been granted only for 225.38 hectares. Further the 1st Petitioner has been delaying the submission of applications to the Forest
Committee for want of sanction for the felling of trees in the areas already applied for much earlier. Thus it is their case that over the period of 11
years, the 1st Petitioner has been able to apply only for 276.40 hectares whereas normally on a 10 years cycle about 47'' hectares had to be
cleared per year. Therefore, for those years, the 1st Petitioner had to purchase firewood from outside incurring heavy expenditure when its own
source of fuel trees raised for the same purpose was available within the estates. While so, to meet the firewood requirements of the 1st Petitioner
for the year 1993-94 the 1st Petitioner has made 5 separate applications, one in respect of each of the aforesaid estates for permission to fell the
trees for manufacture of tea as well as for processing coffee and cardamom as aforesaid causing irreparable harm to the Petitioner. The
applications are kept pending because of the instructions from higher authorities that all applications have to be approved by the Government. It is
their case that Eucalyptus plantations raised by the Petitioner for the purposes aforesaid is not ""Forest"" but it is a ""plantation"" and the position is
well settled by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and Another Vs. Nilgiri Tea Estates Ltd., . Therefore, according to them, the question of any
deforestation does not arise in the case of felling of Eucalyptus trees forming an integral part of the 1st Petitioners tea plantations. Further such
felling is only for the purpose of the 1st Petitioners own requirements and there is no indiscriminate feling. Furthermore, the Eucalyptus trees are
felled as aforesaid on 10 year cycles leaving stumps at a height of 6"" allowing the trees re-generate. In such circumstances, the question of any
deforestation or the change of any special characteristics of the hill areas or loss of soil cover does not arise in the instant case, by the 1st Petitioner
felling the Eucalyptus trees grown by it. Plantations are nationally important agro-industries. They are a major foreign exchange earner. Tea alone
earning more than Rs. 1,000 cores per annum from exports. The Tamil Nadu Forests Act, 1982 apart from providing for reservation of forests,
makes provision for protection of forests in private, lands, by giving directions to private forest owners taking over of such land on lease or by
acquisition. The Tamilnadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, makes provision to prevent indiscriminate destruction of private Forest
lands held by plantations outside their developed lands. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Central Act 69 of 1980) provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in the State, no state Government or other authority shall make,
except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing that (I) any reserve forest shall cease to be a reserved forest and (ii)
any forest land may be used for any no forest purpose, the Forest (Conservation) Act being directed only against forest lands at the disposal of the
Government. These three enactments adequately protect and safeguard the objective of protection and conservation of forests in the State.
Whileso, the State Legislature enacted in 1955, the Tamil Nadu Hill Station (Preservation of Trees) Act 1955 with a view to regulate cutting of
trees in Hill Stations and to preserve the special characteristics of the popular hill resorts as regards landscape, vegetal cover and climate. The Act
initially applied only to the five popular hill stations namely Coonoor, Kodaikanal and Ootacamund Municipal areas and the Kotagiri and Yercaud
Panchayat areas. The Hill stations mentioned in the schedule were will recognised hill stations. However, Section 1(2) empowered Government to
extend the application of the Act to such other hill stations as may by notification, be specified by Government. By major amendments made to the
Act by Act No. 14 of 1980, which came into force on and from 18.4.80, the title of the Act was changed to the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas
(Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 and all references to hill stations were changed to h:.ll areas. By the amendments made to Section 8, all
categories of tree cutting in respect of which permission could not be refused under the unamended section were brought within the regulatory
provisions of the Act. Under the original Act permission for cutting could be granted by the Collector and this power was delegated to the
Divisional Forest Officer, and his permission readily was forthcoming without delay. Under the amended provisions the power to grant permission
is vested in the committee to be appointed u/s 2-A of the Act. This committee consists of the District Collector as Chairman, the District Forest
Officer, the Executive Engineer of the Agriculture Department in charge of Soil Conservation, the Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector and
the Tahsildar. This is a committee of officials. Different officials are to submit reports and recommendations in regard to matters falling within their
jurisdiction. There is no provision for making joint inspections and different officers inspect the trees where the areas are to be cut at different
times. These procedures have resulted in the committee taking an inordinately long time in the disposal of applications for tree cutting in plantations.
The original Act was not extended to the Anamalais Hills. The Act was so applied to the Valparai Township areas in the Anamalais Hills by G.O.
Ms. No. 690, Forests and Fisheries, dated 23.5.80. Since then the tea plantations as well as other plantations have been having innumerable
difficulties in the way of share regulations in their plantations and felling of'' fuel trees . Therefore representations were made to the Government to
amend the Act for exempting plantations, or at least to liberalise the guidelines for cutting of shade and fuel trees. In respondence the Government
constituted by G.O. dated 15.4.82 a committee consisting of four senior conservators of Forests and the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the
Planters'' Association of Tamilnadu. After a study of representative planting regions and the practical problems faced by the plantations, the
committee submitted a near unanimous report to the Government on 17.8.82. The Committee inter alia recommended liberal guidelines for felling
of fuel trees on the basis of silvicultural maturity norms or on the basis of age of planting though in practice those recommendations were not
implemented. On the other hand, Government imposed onerous conditions in Government order subsequently issued for cutting trees. The
Petitioners are facing difficulties in getting necessary permission when required. When wages and costs of all essential inputs are spiralling in an
inflationary economy, it is only by continually increasing productivity in terms of higher and higher yields per hectares that a plantation can continue
to be viable. The manner in which the Act is administered works against increasing productivity which is not in the public interest. According to the
Petitioner''s the Act is not intended to be applied to cultivated areas much less cultivated plantations. These plantations have been in existence for
nearly a century and contribute to prevention of deforestation, preservation of special characteristics of the hill areas as regards landscape, vegetal
cover and climate which are the objectives of the Act. That Act cannot apply to such preexisting plantations. In. fact the vegetal cover of a
plantation consists of the plantation bushes and the shade and fuel trees and preservation of that vegetal cover needs the cyclical planting, thinning,
regulation, removal and regeneration of trees including fuel trees. It is also their case that the plantations in the other states where these crops are
cultivated, namely, Assam, West Bengal, Kerala and Karnataka are not subjected to the restrictions of the kind imposed by the impugned Tamil
Nadu Act. There is no special legislation in West Bengal and Assam restricting cutting of fuel trees in tea plantations. Sub-section (7) of Section 8
of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 exempts felling of casurina, Coconut, Erithrina, Eucalyptus, Glycidia, Hopea, Wightina, Prospia,
Rubber, Sesbania, Silver oak and Subabul trees from the restrictions placed on felling of trees u/s 8(1) of that Act. Shade trees and fuel trees fall
within the exempted species. Further according to them, the definition of . ""Trees"" in the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1966 restricts the
application of the Act to a few species which are more valuable trees such as teak, rosewood, irul, etc., The Act does not apply to species like
silver oak, eucalyptus, etc., and hence tea plantations are under no restriction to cut and remove their shade trees and fuel trees. Thus it is their
case that the provisions of the Act are arbitrary and illegal and being aggrieved by the restrictions placed by the impugned Act and having failed to
get redressal on a lasting basis by representations made through the Association at the highest levels in the Government and also having failed to get
the permission applied for, felling of fuel trees, the Petitioners have no alternative but to challenge the validity and application of the Act to their
cultivated and developed agricultural lands including fuel areas.
Per contra, in the counter affidavit interalia it is contended that the Petitioner cannot be an aggrieved person by the impugned Government
Order, as their rights have not been in any way taken away or infringed. By this no prejudice would be caused to anybody as this Act is only
preventive/regulative in nature and not prohibitive. This act has been enacted by the Legislature to regulate the tree cutting in Hill areas in order to
prevent soil erosion. By no stretch of imagination this Act can be called as prohibitive, especially in the light of the preamble of the said Act, which
states that an Act to provide for the regulation of the cutting of trees and the cultivation of land in hill areas in the State of Tamil Nadu. Further it is
contended by the Respondents that this Act has been enacted (a) to stop indiscriminate cutting of trees in hill stations in the State of Tamil Nadu
involving large scale deforestation and resulting in considerable soil erosion, (b) to prevent deforestation and soil erosion and also to preserve the
special characteristics of the hill areas as regards landscape, vegetal cover and climate. The writ petition is based purely on apprehension and the
Petitioner has not even quoted a single instance, how his rights have been affected by the impugned notification. They further state that the said act
has been enacted to regulate cutting of trees and cultivation of land in hill areas. Cutting of tree will fall under the head of forests and cultivation of
land will fall under the head of Agriculture cutting of the trees can also fell under the head of Agriculture if the trees have been grown as part of
agriculture. They also contend that the intention of the present Act is not to prevail over the Tea Act. The said Act, in no way controls an industry,
and with the existence of this Act for the past 45 years, tea has been grown in Tamil Nadu without any difficulty. The said Act do not confer any
arbitrary and unguided power to grant or to refuse permission for cutting trees and adequate reasons has to be stated in the order and anybody
affected by the order can file an appeal, and any allegations contra to this is denied. It is not true to state that the authorities are raising untenable
conditions and obstructions for felling the fuel trees. The contentions that no permission is required for felling fuel trees raised by intensive cultural
operation is untenable. They also contend that though there is no provision under the said Act to have a joint inspection of the Committee
Members the officers have been suitably directed to inspect the area and submit their reports within 15 days of receipt of the application and the
committee has to meet at least once in a period of two months as per Section 2B of the said Act. Hence, the majority of the applications, which
are in order, could be decided within the stipulated period. Some time, there may be some delay in few cases due to want of some particulars from
the applicants, in any event this cannot invalidate the provisions of the said Act. Thus it is their case that the said Act has been passed after a
careful study about the facts and characters of this Hill area. They also contend that by the impugned Act, the Petitioner''s rights have not been
taken away so also the impugned Act is only regulatory in nature and not prohibitive and hence, there is no violation of one''s constitutional right
and therefore the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of the case, the following are the admitted facts. The
Petitioner company is having Pachaimallai, Pannimade, Uralikal, Velonie and Valparai Estates situated in the Anamalai Hills Village in Valparai
Taluk, Coimbatore District. All these estates of the 1st Petitioner except Valparai Estate, have also their respective tea factories for processing the
tea leaf harvested from the Estates and the Valparai Estate has a coffee pulping factory. The plantations of tea and coffee crops first started in
Anamalai hills village in the then Pollachi Taluk (now Valparai Taluk) Coimbatore District from 1900 onwards. Between 1920-1930 the lands in
question were converted into Ryotwari tenure by an order of assignment made by the Government in favour of the planting companies. The extent
of tea area in Anamalai comes to 1574.64 hectares and while the extent coffee and cardamom areas in the said Valparai Estate comes to 661.12
hectares and 187.56 hectares respectively. For administrative convenience the 1st Petitioner''s plantations are grouped into 5 estates as aforesaid
subject to change or re-grouping from time to time as required. Such estates have been established according to convenience and suitability of land
and they are utilised for tea plantations as a whole and fuel and other ancillary lands are not set apart for each estate. The 1st Petitioner''s
accordingly carrying on an integrated and inter dependent activity of growing and manufacturing of tea in its tea plantations and also growing and
processing of coffee and cardamom in its Valparai Estates. In such circumstances it is significant to note that the 1st Petitioner needs a continuous
and steady supply of firewood mainly for manufacture of tea in its tea factories in the said estate. The production and manufacture of tea is a
continuous process. That is why the 1st Petitioner requires a constant and regular supply of firewood. Therefore, to meet its requirement the 1st
Petitioner has raised within the said estates Eucalyptus trees for captive consumption within the estates for manufacture of tea. According to them,
their estates in Anamalais alone produce approximately, 5.3 million kilograms of tea annually and for this alone the 1st Petitioner''s aforesaid estates
will require an aggregate of 21200 cubic metres of firewood, apart from firewood required for the supply to workers for domestic use. For the
manufacture of 1kg. of tea 0.004 cubit metres of firewood is required. The yield from a Hectare of Eucalyptus plantation would be only around
300 cubic metres. > The extent of the total fuel plantations raised by the Petitioner being only 471 hectares it is hardly sufficient to meet the
firewood requirements of the Petitioner. The fuel plantations raised by the Petitioner form an integral part of the Petitioner''s tea plantation. By
having a self generated source of energy namely wood fuel the Petitioner could also avoid use of furnace oil saving large amount of foreign
exchange to the country. Having the same in view, the 1st Petitioner avoids the use of furnace oil and use only self generated energy by way of
raising fuel plantations. Thus it is contended by the Petitioner that the 1st Petitioner for its entire operations in South India was able to avoid the use
of about 34 million litres of furnace oil thereby saving foreign exchange to the tune of Rs. 14 crores every year. Eucalyptus trees planted are mature
for felling after about 10 years from planting or copicing in 3 cycles. It is also significant to note that all these Eucalyptus plantations were raised on
barren and rocky lands available with the 1st Petitioner where nothing else could normally grow. It is also pertinent to note that it is admitted even
by the Respondents that the fuel requirement of the estates for the manufacturers of tea in the factories is met by felling of Euc. Grandis trees
planted in the estate. But it is contended by the Respondents that based on the representation of the Petitioner, the Government in their order in
121 Forests and Fisheries dated 4.12.82 issued specific order for felling of E.G.trees on a ten year rotation basis to meet out their fuel needs for
personal consumption in their own factories and as per the instructions issued in Government Orders, the Petitioner''s application were disposed of
and necessary orders were issued for felling trees under usual terms and conditions. They also contend that the Petitioner has not stated any single
instances of difficulties, they have faced in getting permission and therefore, the averment that they are facing difficulties in getting necessary
permission when required, is false and the same is without any substance. But on the contrary it is the specific contention of the Petitioners that
although the authorities were giving permission to the 1st Petitioner to extract firewood for its own requirements, of late, they have been raising
untenable contentions and putting forth obstructions for felling the fuel trees raised by the company for the above purpose. It is also their case that
experiencing inordinate delay in getting the permission the 1st Petitioner had to approach the Government with various representations and appeals.
According to them although for the years 1982 to 1992 the Petitioner had applied for felling of Eucalyptus trees from a total extent of 276.40
hectares, permission has hitherto been granted only for 225.38 hectares. Further, the Petitioners are delaying the submission of applications to the
Forest Committee for want of sanction for the felling of trees in the areas already applied for much earlier. Thus it is their clear case that over the
period of 11 years the first Petitioner has been able to apply only for 276.40 hectares whereas normally on a 10 years cycle about 47 hectares had
to be cleared per year and that therefore it is their grievance that for those years the 1st Petitioner had to purchase firewood from outside incurring
heavy expenditure when its own source of fuel trees raised for the same purpose was available within the estates. It is significant to note that
considering these problems the Government constituted a committee consisting of four senior conservators for Forests and the Chairman and Vice
Chairman of the Planter''s Association of Tamil Nadu and after a study of representative planting regions and the practical problems faced by the
plantations, the committee submitted a neat unanimous report to the Government on 17.8.1982 and the said committee inter alia recommended
liberal guidelines for felling of fuel trees on the basis of silvicultural maturity norms or on the basis of age of planting though in practice those
recommendations were not implemented. Thus in this case the Petitioners have clearly made out a case that the Petitioners are facing difficulties in
getting necessary permission when required. They have also pointed out that in the other states where these crops are cultivated, namely Assam,
West Bengal, Kerala and Kamataka the owners are not subjected to the restrictions of the kind imposed by the impugned Tamil Nadu Act.
Moreover, it is their category contention that the Eucalyptus plantations raised by the Petitioner for the purposes aforesaid is not ""Forest"" but it is a
Plantation"" and the position is well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and Another Vs. Nilgiri Tea Estates Ltd., .
Therefore they strongly contend that the question of any deforestation does not arise in the case of felling of Eucalyptus trees forming an integral
part of the 1st Petitioners tea plantations. That apart it is also significant to note that such felling is only for the purpose of the 1st Petitioner''s own
requirements and there is no indiscriminate felling. Another important aspect is that the Eucalyptus trees are felled as aforesaid on 10 year cycles
leaving stumps at a height of 6"" allowing the trees to regenerate. Therefore it is the categoric contention of the Petitioners that in such
circumstances, the question of any deforestation or the change of any special characteristics of the hill areas or loss of soil cover does not arise in
the instant case by the 1st Petitioner felling the Eucalyptus trees grown by it. In these circumstances of this case, I see every force in the above
contentions and the case projected by the Petitioners herein. On the other hand the Respondents themselves are admitting that it is true that the fuel
requirement of the estates for the manufacturers of tea in the factories is met by felling of Euc. Grandis trees planted in the estate and also that they
have issued specific order for felling of E.G. trees on a ten year rotation basis to meet out their fuel needs for personal consumption. Further they
have clearly made out a case that in getting permission from the authorities for such felling they are experiencing inordinate delay and also heavy
financial loss. But that has not been effectively rejected or disproved by the Respondents in their counter. On the other hand they admit that there
may be some delay in few cases. That being so, I am of the clear view that the Petitioners herein have clearly made out a case in their favour.
However coming to the prayers asked for by the Petitioners, the first prayer is to declare the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees)
Act, 1955 as unconstitutional and void. But that cannot be allowed since such a prayer will give a blanket order for the Petitioners. Whereas in the
other facts and circumstances of this case the other two prayers can be accepted, viz., it has to be declared that the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas
(Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 and the rules made there under will not apply to fuel trees and other trees grown/cultivated by the Petitioners in
their own land as part of their plantation and intended for the purpose of utilisation as fuel in the manufacture of tea; and it has also to be declared
that consequently the Petitioners need not obtain any permit, consent or licence from the State Government., or any of its authorities for felling,
transporting or using as fuel trees specifically grown by them in their own Estates/plantations and intended to be used by them as a fuel for the
manufacture of tea or for any industrial or domestic use in connection with the Tea Industry. Thus the writ petition succeeds and has to be allowed
in part.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part granting the reliefs (b) and (c) sought for in the writ petition. No costs.