SHRI NAGENDRA S. NAGVEKAR Vs. SMT. SUNDARAMMA KANDASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service.

(2.) On the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent no.1 proceedings were initiated before the learned Deputy Collector and Tree Officer, Mormugao under Sec. 12(A) of the Goa Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 (Act, for short). The complaint was in respect of two trees identified as C-1 and C-2 belonging to the petitioner. In so far as the tree identified as C-1 is concerned, the Tree Officer has found that the said tree is young and healthy and there is no need to cut the same. However, so far as the tree identified as C-2 is concerned, the Tree Officer directed it to be cut. This was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, which by an order dated 30/11/2016 has dismissed the appeal directing the petitioner to follow the order passed by the Tree Officer which order is subject matter of challenge in this petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. Under Sec. 12(A) of the Act, the Tree Officer can take action where it is found that the tree is in ruinous state or is likely to fall. This Court in the case of Santosh R. Prabhugaonkar Vs. State and Ors. (Criminal Writ Petition No.82/2010) has held that unless and until the tree is in a dangerous or ruinous condition and is likely to fall in ordinary circumstances, no order for cutting of the tree can be passed. A perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority would go to show that the Appellate Authority has come to the conclusion that the tree is not in a ruinous condition. If that be so, in my considered view the appeal could not have been dismissed. It would be significant to reproduce the operative part of the appellate order which reads as under: