N.Sellamuthu Vs the State of Tamilnadu

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, O/o. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (Head of Forest Force), Forest Headquarters, Guindy, Velachery Main Road, Chennai-600 032

¶13

The District Forest Officer O/o The District Forest Office, District Collectorate Campus, Tiruvallur -602 001

¶14

The Forest Range Officer Social Forest Division, Tirutani -631 209. .. Respondents

¶15

__________ Page1 of 10

¶16

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

¶17

WP No.2735 of 2026

¶18

Prayer : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the 1st Impugned Proceedings bearing Se.Mu.Aa.No.8331/2022/L dated 01.04.2025 issued by the 3rd Respondent and 2nd Impugned Proceeding bearing Na.Ka.No.8331/2022/L dated 17.11.2025 passed by the 3rd Respondent quash the same and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to extend the deadline for the completion of the cutting and removal of the Babul Tress from the Kodhandaramapuram Lake measuring to an extent of 6.61 Hectares under the Tiruttani Social Forest Scheme 1986-1987 .

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Murali for Mr.M.Venkadesh Kumar For Respondents : Dr.T.Seenivasan Spl.Govt.Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr.T.Seenivasan, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶22

The petitioners claim to be registered contractors with the Forest

¶23

Department. It is a policy of the Forest Department to auction the right to remove invasive species growing on lands under its control. Such an

¶24

Page2 of 10

¶25

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

¶26

WP No.2735 of 2026

¶27

auction is conducted for a specified period. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the respondents conducted an auction on 14.11.2022 for the removal of Babul trees from Kodhandaramapuram Lake, situated at Tiruttani in the social forest area. The first petitioner appointed the second petitioner as his power of attorney to participate in the auction. The auction was knocked down in favour of the petitioners herein for a sum of Rs.3,72,000/-.

¶28

It is not in dispute that the entire amount was paid by the first petitioner on 31.12.2022. The last date for completing the entire process was fixed as 31.08.2023 i.e. a period of eight months was granted to the petitioner to remove the Babul trees from the Kodhandaramapuram Lake, which has an extent of 6.61 hectares.

¶29

The second petitioner alleges that Kodhandaramapuran Lake was filled with water and therefore, they were not in a position to remove the Babul trees. According to them, mechanical removal became challenging since the equipment could not be operated in the muddy terrain. Hence, the petitioners submitted representations dated 04.09.2023 and 09.10.2023 to the third respondent seeking an extension of time till 31.10.2024 to remove the trees. The respondents did not consider the same.

¶30

__________ Page3 of 10

¶31

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

¶32

WP No.2735 of 2026

¶33

The petitioners again submitted representations dated 16.10.2023,

¶34

13.11.2023 & 15.12.2023 seeking an extension of deadline. The District Forest Officer, Tiruvallur, directed the Forest Range Officer , Tiruttani to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. Thereafter, the third respondent passed an order dated 01.04.2025 rejecting the request made by the petitioner for extension of time to remove the trees till 31.08.2025. The second petitioner states that he is aggrieved by the said proceedings issued by the third respondent.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner urges that prior to passing the impugned order, the petitioners were not heard and no field enquiry was conducted by the respondents 3 and 4 to ascertain whether the conditions of Kodhandaramapuram Lake enabled the petitioners to remove the invasive species. Aggrieved by the decision refusing to extend the lease period, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶36

Dr.T.Seenivasan, states that a circular issued by the second respondent in Circular No.1/2025 dated 30.01.2025 for ready reference, and

¶37

the said circular has been scanned and extracted hereunder :-

¶38

__________ Page4 of 10

¶39

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

¶40

WP No.2735 of 2026

¶41

__________ Page5 of 10

¶42

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

¶43

WP No.2735 of 2026

¶44

__________ Page6 of 10

¶45

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

¶46

WP No.2735 of 2026

¶47

__________ Page7 of 10

¶48

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

¶49

WP No.2735 of 2026

¶50

A perusal of paragraph Nos.5 & 6 of the said circular, read with the provisions of the Auction Contract Rules, Appendix-27(Sec.163) shows that in case, the contractor does not remove the produce from the leased area before the expiry of the auction period, the remaining produce shall stand forfeited in favour of the State of Tamil Nadu and the contractors shall not be entitled to any refund or abatement of the amount paid under the contract.

¶51

Dr.T.Seenivasan, further invited the attention of this Court to Clause 6, which provides that , in case of circumstances beyond the control of the contractor and upon receipt of a report from the field authorities, extension of the lease period may be granted.

¶52

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

¶53

In my view , a person has the right to remove forest produce only within the period granted under the auction. Once the auction period expires, it is entirely within the discretion of the Forest Authorities whether an extension of the lease period should be granted or not. The petitioner has a vested right only during the subsistence of the auction period and no vested right thereafter. For the purpose of issuance of a writ of mandamus or

¶54

Page8 of 10

¶55

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

¶56

WP No.2735 of 2026

¶57

certiorari, the petitioner must establish an enforceable legal right. When the authority has arrived as a factual conclusion that the relief sought for by the petitioner does not warrant a grant of extension, this Court cannot substitute its view.

¶58

In the absence of any enforceable right, I am unable to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Certiorari. Furthermore, the lease period expired on 31.08.2023 and nearly 2 ½ years have elapsed thereafter. Hence, I am of the view that the writ petition is untenable and is accordingly dismissed . No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶59

02-02-2026

¶60

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No kkd

¶61

__________ Page9 of 10

¶62

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

¶63

WP No.2735 of 2026

¶64

1.

¶65

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.

¶66

kkd

¶67

The Principal Secretary, Department of Forests and Environment, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶68

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, O/o. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (Head of Forest Force), Guindy, Velachery Main Road, Chennai-600 032

¶69