This petition challenged the indiscriminate cutting of standing trees along Tuticorin road sides. The Commissioner clarified the authorized limit and undertook strict replanting conditions, leading the Court to dismiss the writ.
Writ of mandamus was dismissed; consequential miscellaneous petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.14116 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.10.2020 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P(MD)No.14116 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD)No.11768 of 2020
K.Selva Kumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District.
2.The Commissioner, Tuticorin Corporation, Tuticorin. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents or their men or contractors not, to cut the standing trees in the Tuticorin Town roadsides under the guise of infrastructure developmental activity by considering the representation dated 14.09.2020 of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Siva Thilakar For Respondent : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, No.1 Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.Saji Bino No.2
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. ]
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents not to cut the standing trees at the road sides of Tuticorin Town, under the guise of development of infrastructure, by considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 14.09.2020.
2.According to the petitioner, the Tuticorin Corporation under the guise of developing the infrastructure in Tuticorin Town, has cut down three hundred trees, when permission has been granted to cut only 64 trees. Even for cutting one tree, ten saplings have to be planted and maintained. Since the Corporation has cut down the trees indiscriminately, the petitioner made a representation, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14.09.2020, which has not been considered by the authorities
1/3
W.P(MD)No.14116 of 2020
concerned and therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court with the aforesaid prayer.
3.Heard Mr.S.Siva Thilakar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.Saji Bino, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.
4.The Commissioner, Tuticorin Corporation has also appeared before this Court through video conferencing and this Court has posed questions as to the permission obtained for cutting down the trees and the actual number of trees cut. The Commissioner has submitted that the Corporation has obtained permission for cutting 260 trees, which are located in three different places, of which, in one place, they have obtained permission to cut 64 trees, which has been wrongly projected by the petitioner in this petition. He further submitted that they are uprooting the trees and re-planting the same, wherever possible and the success rate of the re-planted trees is only 30%.
5.The Commissioner also submitted that they are setting up Miyawaki Forest in two different places in Tuticorin and the project is being carried out under his direct supervision and further, he undertook that for cutting one tree, ten saplings would be planted and maintained.
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
dsk
2/3
W.P(MD)No.14116 of 2020
To
1.The District Collector, Tuticorin District.
2.The Commissioner, Tuticorin Corporation, Tuticorin.
+1 CC to M/s.S. SIVA THILAKAR, Advocate ( SR-19979[F] dated 14/10/2020 )
+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-20036[F] dated 14/10/2020 )
+1 CC to M/s.S. SAJI BINO, Advocate ( SR-20081[F] dated 14/10/2020 )
W.P(MD)No.14116 of 2020 12.10.2020
AP(29.10.2020) 3P 6C
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent Corporation obtained permission to cut only 64 trees or 260 trees as claimed by the petitioner?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Selva Kumar
District Collector, Tuticorin District
Commissioner, Tuticorin Corporation
N.KIRUBAKARAN
B.PUGALENDHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
