MANAGOBINDA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are the villagers of Kantiokateni have filed this case for declaring letter No. 6829 dated 8.12.2000 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer. Dhenkanal to be illegal and, consequently, no action shall be taken thereon. In this case ward members of Ward Nos. 1,4,5,6,8,9.10 and 11 have filed an application to be included as Intervenors and their application was directed to be considered at the time of hearing of the case. The opposite parties have filed their counter affidavit in this case, inter alia, denying the averments of the writ application.

(2.) THE writ petitioners have claimed to have constituted Vana Surakhya Samiti (in short 'V.S.S.') in consultation with the opposite party No. 2. After formation of such V.S.S. it is stated that there was a memorandum of understanding between the petitioner and the opposite parties. The V.S.S. was constituted with a view to protect, safeguard and conserve the forest growth and the villagers shall only be permitted to use certain forest produce for their domestic use. In the said scheme it was further indicated that an Executive Committee shall be constituted consisting of 10 to 15 members which shall be presided over by the Naib Sarpanch of the Panchayat and the Forest Officials will also be taken as members. The tenure of the Executive Committee shall be for a period of two years from the date it assumes charge. It has also been stated in the Resolution that if the work of the Executive Committee is found to be detrimental against protection/ generation or proper management of the forest, the D.F.O. shall record his finding and he may dissolve the Executive Committee. In the event of such desolution a meeting shall be convened to constitute a new committee. Since a notice for dissolving the committee was issued by the D.F.O. under Annexure -1, the petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved by such action have filed this writ application.

(3.) THERE is a provision that in case the order of dissolution is passed by the D.F.O., then appeal shall lie to the Sub -Collector. It is contended that although an appeal has been filed, no order has been passed by the appellate authority. Therefore, the petitioners were compelled to file this case.