Bombay High Court
M/S. Aronda Properties Pvt.Ltd. vs Tree Officer And Ranje Forest ... on 15 November, 2011
Bench: G. S. Godbole
Jwp8513-8569-11.sxw
1
spb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8513 OF 2011
M/s. Aronda Properties Pvt.Ltd., through its
representative -Mrs. Suryakant Pokhare, Age 63, ... Petitioners.
office at F-2,3rd floor, Navelkar Trade Centre,
Opp.Azad Maidan, M.G.Rd.,Panji Goa 403001.
V/s.
1 Tree Officer and Ranje Forest Officer,
Sawantwadi, Dist.Sindhudurg
ig ... Respondents.
2 Deputy Forest Conservator, Sawantwadi.
3 State of Maharashtra
---
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8569 OF 2011
M/s. Aronda Properties Pvt.Ltd., through its
representative -Mrs. Suryakant Pokhare ... Petitioners.
V/s.
Tree Officer and Ranje Forest Officer,
Sawantwadi, Dist. Sindhudurg & Ors. ... Respondents.
---
Mr. P.B. Shah i/by Mr. Mahesh Rawool for the Petitioner in both Petitions.
Ms. Aparna Vhatkar, AGP for the Respondents.
---
CORAM:- G.S. GODBOLE, J.
DATED :- 15TH NOVEMBER, 2011.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith and Petitions
taken up for hearing. Learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of
Jwp8513-8569-11.sxw
the Respondents.
2 Heard Mr. Shah for the Petitioner in both the Petitions and learned
AGP for the Respondents.
3 Both these Writ Petition challenge orders dated 10.5.2011 and
25.3.2011 respectively passed by the Dy. Tree Officer & Range Forest
Officer, Sawantwadi, Dist. Sindhudurg whereby in proceedings under
Section 4 of the Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964
(Maharashtra Act No. XXXIV of 1964) a penalty has been imposed on the
Petitioners. Mr. Shah relies upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court (Coram: J.N. Patel & S.T. Kharche, JJ.) in the case of
Pramilabai w/o. Uttamrao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
2004 (2) Bom. L.R. 736 = 2004 AIR (Bom) 125 and contends that
opportunity of personal hearing was not given to the Petitioners. On the
other hand the learned AGP states that a show cause notice was issued
and the Petitioners have replied to the show cause notice and therefore, the
provisions of Section 4 has been complied with.
4 Mr.Shah has drawn my attention to the fact that in W.P. 8513/ 2011,
Jwp8513-8569-11.sxw
a show cause notice for hearing was given on 2.5.2011 and the hearing
was fixed on 6.5.2011 but the notice was served only on 9.5.2011 and on
the next date, the impugned order was passed on 10.5.2011. In so far as
W.P. No. 8569/2011 is concerned, though a show cause notice was given
and the same was duly replied on 1.3.2011, however, personal hearing was
not given.
Considering the controversy involved in the Petitions and in view of
the Judgment of the Division Bench referred to above, though in my
opinion, as there is efficacious statutory remedy of filing an Appeal as
contemplated by Section 6 of the Act read with Chapter 13 of MLR Code,
1966 and though such an Appeal will lie before the Assistant Conservator
of Forests, who is immediate superior officer in the hierarchy of the
Forest Department; in the facts of this case, since personal hearing is not
offered in the first case and even reply was not filed and in the second case,
personal hearing was not offered though reply was filed, the Petitions are
entertained so as to ensure that a personal hearing is given.
6 Hence, I pass following order :
i Impugned Order dated 10.5.2011 which is subject matter of
Jwp8513-8569-11.sxw
W.P. 8513/2011 and the impugned order dated 20.3.2011 which is
subject matter of W.P. No. 8569/2011 are quashed and set aside. In
W.P. No. 8569/2011 no further reply is required to be filed.
However, since reply to show cause notice which is subject matter of
the Petition was not filed in W.P. No.8513/2011, the Petitioner shall
file reply within two weeks from today.
ii
Range Forest Officer will, thereafter offer opportunity of
personal hearing to the Petitioners within a period of two weeks
thereafter and shall pass final orders within a period of six weeks
from today.
iii All contentions of the respective parties on merits of the
controversy are expressly kept open to be agitated.
iv Subject to the aforesaid directions, Rule is made absolute
in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
[G. S. GODBOLE, J.]
