Uttarakhand High Court
Birindar Singh Sidhu vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 8 May, 2024
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition (CRL) No. 1383 of 2023
Birindar Singh Sidhu ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (CRL) No. 1285 of 2020
Shiv Prasad Semwal ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (CRL) No. 1384 of 2023
Birindar Singh Sidhu ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ...Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Birindar Singh Sidhu, petitioner appeared in person.
Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Saurabh
Pande, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Oral)
A question is arise during the course of argument
with regard to the notification dated 10.11.2023, which is brought
on record by the petitioner by way of a supplementary affidavit at
page 364 (Hindu version) and page 365 (English version). Court
has gone through both the versions hindi as well as english,
which are being reproduced hereinbelow:
"jkT;iky] Hkkjrh; ou ¼mRrjk[k.M la"kks/ku½ vf/kfu;e] 2001 dh
/kkjk 1 dh mi/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu iznRr "kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq, bl vf/klwpuk ds tkjh gksus dh frfFk dks ,slh rkjh[k ds :Ik
esa fu;r djrs gSa] ftl rkjh[k ls mDr vf/kfu;e ds micU/k izo`Rr
gksaxsA
In exercise of powers conferred by sub section (3) of section
1 of the Indian Forest (Uttarakhand, Amendment) Act, 2001
(Act No. 10 of 2002) the Governor hereby pleased to appoint
the date of issuing this notification as the date on which the
provisions of the said Act shall come into force."
2. Before issuing this notification dated 10.11.2023 the
file was processed and it was processed through the legislative
department as well as the law department. Legislative department
was of the opinion that the provision of the Indian Forest Act
(Uttarakhand Amendment) 2001 cannot be enforced from a
retrospective date and the same will be enforced as from the date
when it is notified.
3. The law department was also of the same view,
learned Advocate General Mr. S.N. Babulkar submits that though
this notification dated 10.11.2023 is not under challenge;
however, while starting the argument he submits that though this
notification was issued on 10.11.2023, but by virtue of this
notification the amendment of 2001 i.e. Act No. 10 of 2002 was
given effect to from retrospective date i.e. from 01.08.2002 by
virtue of the language implied in this notification. The learned
Advocate General also further make an attempt to interpret the
said notification in the same manner from reading the English
version. In reference to this Mr. S.N. Babulkar placed reliance in
paragraph-17 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Bihar and Others vs. Bihar Distillery
Ltd. and Others (1997) 2 SCC 453. Thus, the interpretation made
by the learned Advocate General is contrary to the opinion of
legislative department as well as of law department.
4. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent
no. 2 adopted the argument of learned Advocate General with
regard to the interpretation of the notification dated 10.11.2023.
5. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General seeks
three days' time to file an affidavit of the Secretary concerned
with regard to this notification dated 10.11.2023.
6. Put up this matter on 14.05.2024 immediately after
fresh cases.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
08.05.2024
PR
