Sri Parendra Tripura v. The State of Tripura and 2 Ors

Order

03/01/2023

By means of this present writ petition, the petitioner has expressed his grievance and dissatisfaction against the respondents for non-issuance of permission by the respondent No.3-Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Ambassa Sub-Division, Dhalai District for extraction of 222 nos. of various kinds of standing mark trees.

2.

Petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders, direction/ directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents for issuance of permission for extraction of 222 nos. of trees.

(ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or order/orders, direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued calling for the

records pertaining to the instant writ petition from the custody of the Respondents and make the Rules absolute after hearing the both sides.

And

Make the Rules absolute after hearing the Parties. And

Pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble High Court may

consider fit and proper."

3.

The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner had planted 222 nos. of trees over his land. Accordingly, the petitioner had applied for tree registration certificate and the same got subsequently issued on 19.05.2019 by the respondent No.3. After getting the tree registration certificate, the petitioner applied to the respondent No.3 through prescribed application form on 16.10.2019 for obtaining permission for extraction of those 222 nos. of trees but till date, no such permission has been obtained by the petitioner. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.11.2022 to the respondent No.2-the Divisional Forest Officer, Ambassa Sub-Division, Dhalai District by registered post for issuance of order for extraction of timber of 222 nos. of standing mark trees, but no such order/permission has been received by the petitioner so far. Hence, this case.

4.

Mr. K. Datta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that though the respondent No.2 along with respondent

No.3 and Revenue Authorities had conducted joint verification of trees and land and subsequently the respondent No.3 issued tree registration certificate for those 222 nos. of trees on 19.05.2019 in favour of the petitioner, yet the permission for extraction of timber was delayed in spite of the time and again visit of the petitioner to the offices of the respondents. On the other hand, Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, learned Government Advocate, did not give any objection to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.

In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court directs the respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 22.11.2022 of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6.

With the above directions and observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

Pijush

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C) No.1114 of 2022 Sri Parendra Tripura ………Petitioner(s); V E R S U S The State of Tripura & others .........Respondent(s). For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. Datta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, G.A. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)