Disposed

Dhanasekaran.R.S v. The District Forest Officer

Madras HC6 Jul 2022WP(MD)/14362/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a directive to issue transit permits for removing jack timber from his property, claiming exemption under transit rules. The Court held that the合法的 representation must be made to the specific Committee, directing the petitioner to approach it.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to send a fresh representation to the newly constituted Committee within two weeks.

Dhanasekaran.R.S Vs The District Forest Officer — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 06.07.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.14362 of 2022

R.S. Dhanasekaran

.. Petitioner

The District Forest Officer O/o. the District Forest Officer, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District

¶10

The Forest Ranger Perumpallam Range, Pannaikadu, Oothu, Kodaikanal Taluk Dindigul District

¶11

..Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue Timber transit Permits to remove the 13 Jack Tree Wooden logs stored in Petitioners property situated in S.No.585/1, Pannaikadu Village , Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul as per the Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules 1968 within the time period stipulated by this Honble Court

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Fazil for Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This writ petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to

¶18

issue timber transit permit to remove the 13 jack fruit tree wooden logs s stored in petitioner's property situated in S.No.585/1, Pannaikadu Village Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul as per the Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules 1968 .

¶19

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has sent a representation dated 24.06.2022 to the District Forest Officer, Kodaikanal seeking permission to remove the 13 jack fruits tree timber which were stored in the petitioner's property. Since no action has been taken the present petition has been filed.

¶20

The petitioner submits that he is residing in the property in S.No.585/1, Panniakadu Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District. In his farm house there are several varieties of trees planted. The petitioner

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

had planted 120 jack fruits in his farm and several of the trees are in dilapidated stage and there was serious risk to the life of the persons working in the farm and other wild animals. He had cut down and trees and stored the timbers in his farm. Thereafter the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in WP(MD) No.14096 of 2017 before this Court seeking for a similar prayer. At that time he as adviced to compound the offence for cutting down the trees. Thereafter he approached the District Hill Areas Preservation of Trees Commitee to permit him remove the tree wooden logs for which he was asked to pay Rs.500/-. Strangely it has been recorded as fine of Rs.500/- under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules 1968 . The learned counsel would further submit that as per G.O.Ms.No.165, Environment and Forests (FR13) dated 30.11.2009 Jack fruits trees in the private land have been omitted from the Rule 2 Clause(3) of the Act of the Tamil Nadu transit rules, thereby he has no restrictions to remove the jack fruit tree timber.

¶24

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner had admitted his guilt and also paid a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 7 of the Hill areas Prevention

¶25

3/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Act. As per Section 3(ii ) of the Act if the petitioner intends to remove any trees permission can be granted if appropirate application is made to the commitee constituted under Section 2(a) of the Act and after obtaining permission from the authorities, he can remove the timbers.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶29

perused the materials available on record.

¶30

It is seen that the petitioner has made representation only to the District Forest Officer and not before the Committe constituted under Section 2(a) of the Act. In view of the same, the petitioner is directed to sent a fresh representation to the newly constituted commitee within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order giving all particulars in the prescribed format. Thereafter the commitee to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of submission of application form.

¶31

4/6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶34

No costs.

¶35

06.07.2022

¶36

Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No aav

¶37

¶38

The District Forest Officer O/o. the District Forest Officer, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District

¶39

The Forest Ranger Perumpallam Range, Pannaikadu, Oothu, Kodaikanal Taluk Dindigul District

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

5/6

¶42

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶43

aav

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.14362 of 2022

¶45

06.07.2022

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

6/6

Dhanasekaran.R.S v. The District Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanasekaran.R.S v. The District Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thiraviyam.C Vs the Joint Commissioner

M.a.K.Thangamani Nadar Modern Rice Mill Vs Engineer. S. Pandiarajan M. Tech

Sebco Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Shri Nirathala Mudaiya Ayyanar Sonaiya Kovil Vs Ayyanar

Haji.M.Nainar Mohamed. Vs the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board

Virudhunagar District Quarry Owners Vs The Commissioner / Additional Chief Secretary