MD UMAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has moved this Court under Arts, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer, Bonaigarh, opp. party No. 3 to issue felling order in respect of the trees purchased by him and for issuing timber transit permit. After stating facts, counter and rejoinder, it is found :

(2.) THE narration of the facts as above discloses a deplorable state of things. The T. T. Permits are issued under the provisions of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') framed under the provisions of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (Orissa Act 14 of 1972). The rules are regulatory in nature and purport to regulate movement of timber in the State and provide that subject to some exceptions, all forest produce in transit by land/rail, or/ water shall be covered by a permit to be called the 'Transit Permit' which is to be issued free of cost by the Divisional Forest Officer or by the Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by him in that behalf Rule 7 of the rules requires that any person desiring to remove forest produce shall apply for a transit permit and that on receipt of the application, the Forest Officer having jurisdiction shall cause an enquiry where necessary, in the manner prescribed. All the orders refusing to grant permit is to be in writing and is to state the reasons for refusal and is to be communicated to the applicant. Sub -rule 8 of Rule 7 prescribes the procedure for making the enquiry when application is made for removal of timber etc. from private holdings and provides that when required by the Divisional Forest Officer or the Assistant Conservator of Forest duly authorised in that behalf, the applicant is to pay the Amin's fees, if any, prescribed for requisitioning the services of an Amin from the Tahasil Office for joint verification by Revenue and Forest Officials of plots and trees and bamboos mentioned In the application for transit permit. On completion of such joint verification, if no discrepancies,are noticed in the field, the Divisional Forest Officer may direct the applicant to submit a list of conversions of trees felled and converted by him over those plots and to put the facsimile of his registered property mark on either ends of all timber including round -wood -billets. After receiving conversion list, the Divisional Forest Officer is to get it verified and brand the timber including round -wood -billets with the Forest Department bakker mark bearing the letters 'P. T ' and that after conversion list has been verified and the hammer mark has been branded, the Divisional Forest Officer shall issue the transit permit.

(3.) AS the facts disclose, the department does not appear to have any reasonable excuse not to have issued the T. T. permit in favour of the petitioner. The very application, which was made in January, 1983 was first attended to 3. 1/2 years after merely for the issue of a request to the Tahasildar to depute an Amin to attend the joint verification. It is apparent that private rights of the petitioner was being attended to and interfered with in a cavelier fashion. Even after the joint verification was made, yet a further eight months' time was taken merely to direct the petitioner to submit the conversion list and that too only in respect of the trees of six tenants out of trees of 27 tenants which was jointly verified. No reason has been shown as to why the joint verification in respect of all the 98 tenants was not done and it appears that such joint verification has not yet been done. Even after the petitioner had submitted the conversion list, yet no T. T. permit was issued in his favour and instead a negotiation was taken up behind his back to sell away his timber to the Orissa Forest Corporation for which no authority has also been shown to us. After the petitioner expressed his unwillingness, the letter in Annexure -10 was issued on 8 -12 -1985 calling upon him to furnish informations which were already with the opposite party No. 3 and telling him that unless he supplies such informations, the felling order cannot be issued As the petitioner has pointed out, these informations were available with the opposite party No. 3 as early as 1982 having been finished by the Tahasildar as per Annexure -13. The joint verification report had also been submitted to the opposite party No. 3 by his own Range Officer and it was not for the petitioner to furnish a copy of it.