Victor Bernard Dey vs The Chief Conservator of Forests, The Divisional Forest Officer and The Forest Range Officer

Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner claims that M/s. Aswathy Plantations Ltd are the owners of Kuppamudy Estate. According to the Petitioners, he submitted Ext.P1 application under the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-forest Areas Act, 2005 to the 3rd Respondent, the authorized officer. It is stated that along with Ext.P1 application for cutting of 49 rose wood trees, Petitioner also enclosed Ext.P2 statement enclosing the details of 49 tees and its length and grith. Ext.P3 is the possession certificate that was attached to Ext.P1.

That application of the Petitioner was rejected by the 3rd Respondent by Ext.P4 order, mainly relying on the pendency of O.R. Nos. 18/2010 and 19/2010. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, Petitioner filed Ext.P6 appeal dated 4.1.2011 to the first Respondent. According to the Petitioner, first Respondent rejected the application by Ext.P7 order rendered on 11.1.2011. It is challenging Exts.P4 and P7 and seeking consequential reliefs that the writ petition is filed.

Main contention raised by the counsel for the Petitioner is that the trees mentioned in Ext.P2 having satisfied the conditions for permitting cutting, as laid down in Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the Act, the request ought not have been rejected for the reasons mentioned in Ext.P4. It is also stated that appeal under Rule 6 of the Rules was rejected by Ext.P7 order without conducting any enquiry or issuing notice or hearing the Appellant.

I heard the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondents also.

It is true that under Rule 6 the appellate authority, the first Respondent, is bound to conduct necessary enquiry and if a request of hearing is made, to hear the Appellant as well. In this case, admittedly the contents of Ext.P7 order show that the appellate authority has only reiterated the reasons mentioned in Ext.P4 and this prima facie indicates that no further enquiry was held. In my view, having regard to he contentions raised by the Petitioner, the appellate authority ought to have issued notice to the Petitioner and conducted enquiry and passed orders. Since such a course was not adopted, in order to enable appellate authority to reconsider the matter, I quash Ext.P7.

On the production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition, the first Respondent will issue notice to the Petitioner, conduct necessary further enquiries and pass fresh orders on Ext.P6 appeal at any rate within 6 weeks.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.