K. USSAINAR Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Forest Contractor stated to be engaged in the business of purchase and sale of forest produce, including purchase and sale of wattle bark. The wattle trees are stated to be in abundance in Nilgiris and Palani Hills on account of nature of soil and are stated to be useful trees as wind breakers and soil binders to check erosion. These trees also regenerate quickly and grow to a height of 15 to 20 feet in two years. Thus, small land holders in their patta lands in the hill areas grow these wattle trees as the wattle bark and pulp wood are marketable products. The bark of wattle contains tannin and juice which is used for processing and tanning of leather, while the pulp wood of the wattle trees is used as raw material for paper industries. The bark of wattle is capable of being easily peeled and after being dried for a few days, it is cut into small pieces and transported to various places where tanneries are located.

(2.) IN the course of business, the petitioner has entered into lease agreements with pattadars of private lands to peel off wattle bark from wattle trees standing in their patta lands. Permission to fell the wattle blue gum trees is applied to the District Committee constituted under the District Collector under Section 2 -A of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, no such permission is obtained for wattle bark.

(3.) THERE was apparently subsequent judicial development, as a Division Bench of this Court opined so on account of a reference by another learned Judge of this Court, who differed from the view taken in Kodaikanal Wattle Bark case, cited supra. In the Civil Appeal Nos. 2274 to 2277 of 1991, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the relevant facts would have to be analysed, including the plea that trees are not damaged by peeling of bark and its normal life is not reduced, and that aspect of regeneration, would have to be looked into, all of which is the concern of the statutory authorities. Since these aspects had not been examined by the Division Bench of this Court, the matter was remitted for reconsideration. We may however note that the appellant in the Civil Appeals is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10501 of 1989, which we have disposed of by a separate order stating that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the present petition, but, the issue survives in the present matter being dealt with by us.