ABDUL LATIFF MOHIDDIN Vs. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this case have alleged that the respondent have committed wilful disobedience of an order made on 22nd November, 1984 in Writ Petition No. 100 of 1984 which had been filed by them and disposed of finally by this Court and, therefore, liable to be dealt with for contempt.

(2.) It is mentioned that in that writ petition the Division Bench had made the Rule absolute in terms of prayer 2 of the petition: Coming to prayer 2 of that petition, it reads as under: The Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and direct the respondents to permit the import of the forest produce from Bhimgad Karnataka State into the Territory of Goa duly covered by a pass issued by the Karnataka officials.

(3.) It must be, however, seen that in paragraph 1 of the prayer clauses in that petition the petitioners had sought a declaration that the provision of section 41 of the Indian Forest Act whereby the declaration of prescribed routes have been made is not applicable for import of timber or movement into the Territory of Goa from the village Bhimgad of Khanapur Taluka, Karnataka State as that village is inaccessible from the Karnataka side. In this contempt petition the petitioners have now alleged that after the order was made by the Division Bench, the petitioners by their letter dated 20th February, 1985 approached the first respondent bringing to his attention the passing of that judgment and that the petitioners desire to transport the forest produce cut and lying at Bhimgad via Bhimgad-Valpoi Road. In that letter the petitioners indicated that they are ready to deposit Rs. 5000/- towards the charges for use of Bhimgad-Valpoi road for one month. It appears that the Deputy Conservator of Forests, balled on that letter of the petitioners, wrote to the Range Forest Officer, Valpoi, forwarding to him a copy of the judgment of the Court and directed him to allow the petitioners to transport their timber from village Bhimgador Khanapur Taluka, Karnataka State to their factory at Betim, Goa, on payment of Rs. 5000/- for the use of the road and Rs. 300/- for services of the Forest Guard for a period of one month. In turn the petitioners approached the Range Forest Officer and it is, however, alleged that for one reason or the other there is evasion on the part of the Range Forest Officer to accept the money for the use of the road and for services of the Forest Guard with the result that the petitioners are not able to transport their timber from Bhimgad-Valpoi road. Relying upon the order made in that writ petition, the petitioners now allege that the respondents have committed contempt by their wilful inaction of not allowing the petitioners to transport timber from Bhimgad by the Bhimgad-Valpoi Road thereby wilfully flouting the road made by the Division Court.