SUDARSAN PALAI Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE occasion for moving this application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioners was the inaction of the opp. parties in issuing the permit under the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules,1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') to enable them to remove timber from their land. The facts which constituted the cause of action for the petitioners are that they purchased the land on which the trees stood on 5 -7 -1974 and filed an application before the Divisional Forest Officer (opp. party No. 1) in Form No. Ill of the Rules on 29 -8 -1987 in pursuance of which the opp. party No. 1 gave a direction on 7 -5 -1988 to the Range Officer, Balukhenda to make a joint verification. The joint verification was made on 3 -12 -1988 but since nothing happened thereafter the petitioners made an application on 12 -9 -1991 to the Secretary to the Government, Forest Department. Since no results were coming forth even then, the present application was filed on 22 -6 -1992. In the counter affidavit filed in pursuance of the rule issued, it was the averments of the opp. parties that on 7 -5 -1988 the opp, party No. 1 instructed the Range Officer to make the joint verification. As the joint verification report did not contain details of measurement nor specified any fixed point of measurement, the opp. party No. 1 on 31 -10 -1988 directed a test check to be made. But in fact no test check was done and there were correspondences between the Tahsil office and the forest officials from time to time in the matter and as the test check has not been made, the permit had not been issued. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the test check was conducted during pendency of the . writ application and in pursuance of our order passed on 9 -4 -1993, the permit has since been issued in favour of the petitioners. From the narration of the facts it would be seen that though the application tor issue of permit was made on 29 -8 -1987, about nine months elapsed before the Divisional Forest Officer acted on the application and directed the Range Officer to make the joint verification. Five months after that the joint verification was taken up. Till three years thereafter no action was taken for which the petitioners made a representation to the Government on 12 -9 -1991. The facts stated in the counter affidavit show that even though the petitioners had no fault and had committed no latches and they wanted the removal of trees from their own land, yet only because of the gross inaction of the opp. parties and the endless correspondences made trying to find fault with each other, the petitioners were not issued with the permit. Since a large number of cases are instituted in this Court with similar complaint regarding issue of permit under the Rules and the facts disclose that even though the Rules contemplate issue of the permit at the earliest, yet such objective is not kept in view and instead the question of issue of permit is attended to in grossly leisurely manner putting the applicants to much jeopardy. Dealing with similar situation, observation was made in 1986 (II) OLR 632 (Md. Umar v. State of Orissa and Ors.) as follows :

(2.) IN that view of the matter, we dispose of this writ application with the directions that the conditions as are stated in the scheme appended to the judgment shall hereafter be scrupulously followed and complied with in disposal of all applications made for issue of permit for removal of timber and other forest produce under the Rules. Copies of the judgment along with the appendix shall be communicated to the Secretaries to the Government in the Forest and Revenue Department. Orissa, Bhubaneswar for necessary compliance, The State Government shall circulate copies of the scheme with the necessary forwarding to all authorities under the Orissa Forest Act and the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules forthwith for their taking action accordingly. The writ in the case be issued forthwith. R.K. Patra, J. I agree. Writ application disposed of.