Quashed

Tilak Ram Tiwari v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

Uttarakhand HC5 Aug 2013WPMS/714/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition quashing an order refusing permission to fell trees. Court found the impugned order relied on an ex parte report ignoring contrary danger reports. Court directed fresh spot inspection by a joint team and tied deadlines for report submission and final decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.01.2013 quashed; fresh joint spot inspection directed within one month; decision to be taken within three weeks of report submission.

Tilak Ram Tiwari Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another — Uttarakhand HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

WPMS No.714 of 2013

¶2

Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.

¶3

Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.C. Arya, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents.

¶4

Heard.

¶5

The Divisional Forest Officer, Champawat refused permission to the petitioner to fell the trees on the basis of report submitted by the Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Campawat.

¶6

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the report of the SubDivisional Officer is ex-parte and without considering the reports of other revenue officers and also of the Ranger. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred report of Patwari, Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate and also the report of Range Officer. All these officers reported that the tree can fall any day and same are posing danger to the house of the petitioner.

¶7

Learned Standing Counsel referred the order of the Divisional Forest Officer in which Divisional Forest Officer has referred the report of Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Champawat in which he has stated that all the five trees are green and healthy and are not tilted towards house of the petitioner and there is no danger to the residential house of the petitioner.

¶8

Since the reports are contradictory and the decision has been taken by the Divisional Forest Officer only on the basis of the report of SubDivisional Forest Officer, Champawat, I quash the order dated 29.01.2013 and direct the Divisional Forest Officer, Champawat to call fresh report from Sub-Divisional Forest Officer. The Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Champawat shall conduct the spot inspection. He will conduct inspection with Patwari, Nayab Tehsildar of the

¶9

area and also in presence of the petitioner and Range Officer. The report submitted by the SubDivisional Forest Officer, Champawat shall also be signed by other officers of the inspection team namely, Nayab Tehsildar, Patwari and Range Officer. Inspection shall be conducted within a period of one month and Divisional Forest Officer, Champawat shall take decision within a period of three weeks from the date of submission of report.

¶10

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶11

Interim relief application no.3140 of 2013 also stands disposed of.

¶12

(V.K. Bist, J.) 05.08.2013

¶13

Arti

Tilak Ram Tiwari v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilak Ram Tiwari v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

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

Brahma Nand Dalakoti Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Punjab Seed Corporation , Balipokhra Vs Ministry of Agriculture Department and Ors.

Bhupendra Singh Rautela Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Sunita Thakur Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

M/s Jagmohan Sharan Ajay Kumar Vs Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Another

Deena Nath Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others