Sugan Chand Gupta vs N.C.T. Of Delhi And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1437 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The petitioner, who happens to be the President of Uttar Pradesh Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Deepali Pritampura, at the relevant time, has preferred this writ petition, seeking quashing of the proceedings including the damages levied by respondent No. 2 that is Forest Officer in case No. 8(73)/C.O.T./F.S./96 dated 14.11.1996. A communication was addressed from the office of Forest Officer stating that the petitioner had illegally cut down green trees while constructing the temple, which was a cognizable offence.

2. Petitioner was called upon to deposit the value of the trees along with compensation within 7 days, failing which action would be taken under the Delhi Tree Protection Rules, 1994. In the event, fine of Rs. 30,000/- was levied and Rs. 17,000/- was demanded as cost of the trees; in all a total sum of Rs. 47,000/-. The petitioner was communicated this vide a notice dated 18.7.2001 issued from the Assistant Collector notifying that a sum of Rs. 47,100/- was recoverable as arrears of land revenue and upon failing to pay action for realisation would be taken.

3. It appears that Uttar Pradesh Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. on receipt of a notice date 14.11.1996 protested to the Forest Officer, stating that no trees had been cut and the complaint had been lodged by some miscreants. The Society also in January, 1997 had addressed a communication to the Development Commissioner against the alleged harassment and claimed that false allegations of cutting trees were being levelled.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that no proper show cause notice was given and the copy of the order as passed was never served on the petitioners. He submits that the land for temple in fact had been allotted to another society that is Cooperative Temple Building Society and not to the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. It was the Cooperative Temple Society, which was responsible for construction of the temple.

5. I am not inclined to entertain this plea at this belated stage. From the correspondence filed by the petitioner itself, it is seen that it was the petitioner, who was in control and had been in communication with and had protested to the Assistant Forest Officer against the proceedings for cutting of trees. Further a representation to the Development Commission was also made by the Society of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that the petitioner failed to avail of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 14, which should have been availed within 30 days.

6. In the instant case, the petitioner does not appear to have been served with the copy of the impugned order, imposing fine and demanding value of trees. There was no communication of the order, which would have enabled the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the prescribed appellate authority. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondents had filed a complaint before the Police, but the police after investigation did not find commission of any offence. Hence did not register any FIR. Mr. Gambhir submits that respondents can proceed independently without lodging an FIR. The same may be true. However, filing of a report with the Police and no FIR being registered after investigation is a relevant factor, which the petitioner may urge in his defense.

7. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not have preferred an appeal as the order itself was not communicated. The plea of appeal being barred by limitation is not available to respondents.

8. Let the appeal be preferred by the petitioner within two weeks from today. Upon the appeal being preferred before the Appellate/Competent authority the notice of recovery issued by the Assistant Collector shall remain stayed till a decision is taken in the appeal.

9. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.