GLENROCK ESTATES P LTD Vs. CHAIRMAN TO THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER SEC2 AOF THE TAMIL NADU PRESERVATION OF PRIVATE FORESTS ACT 1949

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the Order of the learned Judge in W.P.No.1997 of 1991. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in this Appeal. The respondents in the writ petitions are the respondents in the writ Convenience suggests that the nomenclature assigned to the parties in the writ petition adopted by us in the course of this judgment. The petitioners made an application grant of permission to cut 876 trees of various species in S.No.284/lA of Cherangode Gudalur Taluk, Nilgiris District, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Forests Act 27 of 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The extent of the area over these trees are located is stated to be 130 hectares. The cutting of the trees asked for, the selection method, namely felling of only selected trees of timber in contrast to the felling method, namely felling of all the trees in the area for the utilisation, mainly The application has been turned down by the 1st respondent. The petitioner preferred appeal to the 2nd respondent and the appeal was rejected by the 2nd respondent. obliged the petitioner to come to this court by way of the writ petition seeking for a certiorarified mandamus to quash the order and direct the first respondent to permission to cut the trees. The learned single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, that relevant considerations did weigh with the respondents when they negatived permission asked for by the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition. The learned however, gave a direction as follows:

(2.) MR.A.L.Somayaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would first contend considerations that should weigh for according permission to the petitioner to cut the by the selection method should be gleaned from and only from rule 8 of the Rules pursuant to powers conferred by Sec.10 of the Act and in the present case what all been adverted to in the proceedings of the respondents run extraneous to the factors down in the said rule. In answer, MR.K.Subramanian, learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, would submit that Rule 8 has got a place in that it sets down factors, which should be taken note of in granting permission for the cutting of trees selection method; and the conditions subject to which cutting of the trees by the selection method could be permitted and the said rule cannot be stated to be exhaustive guidelines for according permission to cut the trees by the selection method, and other guidelines potently implicit though not explicit in the very objectives, reasons intendment behind the Act, namely prevention of indiscriminate destruction of private forests or denuding of the private forests or diminishing their utility as private forests. Learned" Advocate General would submit that considerations which weighed with the respondents, in negativing the request of the petitioner, must held to be in tune with the objectives, reasons and intendment behind the Act and relevant provisions therein, and such considerations must be held to be relevant unassailable.

(3.) AN appraisal of Rule 8 only indicates that in granting permission regard should be had certain factors and nothing more. We cannot take that rule or construe it as exhaustive of the factors that should weigh with the authority in considering the question of according not according the permission. In granting the permission, the factors set down in Rule 8 certainly have to be taken note of and adhered to. But the question of according or according the permission cannot be scuttled down only by those factors. The authority seized of the question will have to decide it taking guidelines from the objectives, reasons and intendment behind the Act and other relevant provisions therein also. Rule 8 is ancillary and subserve the purpose of the Act. Hence, we are not able to subscribe support to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 8 should form the guideline and there should not be a travelling beyond it while considering question of according or not according the permission to cut the trees by the selection method.