WP(C)/5/2004 of Lakshmi shankar Srivastava Vs State of Sikkim and Ors on 26 November 2004

SerialNo. ofOrder

8.2 .11.2004

Order with Signature ±

Upon hearing Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learnedSenior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. K.: Upadhyaya andMr. I. Choudhury, leaned Counsel for the petitionerand, Mr. S. P. Wangdi, learned Advocate Generalassisted by Mr. J. 8. Pradhan, learned GovernmentAdvocate for the.respohderits and also on perusal of theavailable materials on record, we are of the view thatthis matter can be disposed of rinally on its own merittoday itself, and accordingly, this writ petition isdisposed of with the following short order :-

2. In this writ petition, the writ petitioner questionedthe validity of the action of the respondents authority,namely, t`he impugned° or.ders dated 11.3.2004 and19.3.2004 passed by the Conservator 6f Fbrests (T)Forest, Env. & W/L Department, Govt. of Sikkim - therespondent No.3, as, in Annexures P-13 and P-18 to thewrit petition, by contending inter alia, that noprocedural standard has been followed by the authorityconcemad while passing the related impugned ordersmentioned above. Supporting the case of the writpetitioner, Mr. k. N. Choudriury, learned SeniorCounsel argued that the writ petitioner was not givenany opportunity of being heard while passing therelated impugned orders and that being the position,the action of the respondents concerned is violative ofthe principles of natural justice.

3. We have perused 'the impugned-order dated11.3.2004 passed by ire 6onservator of Forests (T), therespondent No.3 hereili as®in Annexure P-13 to the writpetition, wherein the Conservator of Forests (T)opined that for illicit felling of trees in ICAR Complex,Tadong, the organization i.e. the lcAR, Sikkim unit, ut-\

OfliceNo-t&/a:totaackt;:noLif6:g!r

--J- >.

Order with Signature

Tadong is responsible, and that being the position,lawful action should be taken against the organizationand not the individuals concerned, namely, Shri S.Verma and Shri Maheshwar Singh of ICAR ResearchComplex, Tadong.

4. Mr. S. P. Wangdi, Learned Advocate General inhis usual frankness submitted that while passing theimpugned order dated 11.3.2004, the present writpetitioner ef the organization was not heard by theappellate authority.

On perusal of the available materials on record, itis revealed that, the organization, namely, ICARrepresented by the Joint Director, preferred a separateappeal on 18.3.2003 before the appellate authority. Acopy of the memo of appeal finds its place at AnnexureP-16 to the writ petition which was also disposed of bythe Conservator of Forests (T) the respondent No.3herein on 19.3.2004. It appears to us that whiledisposing of the said appeal p'referred by the writpetitioner, the writ petitioner was not heard at all by therespondent No.3 before passing the impugned orderdated 19.3.2004.

5. In view of the above position, we need not go moreinto depth into the merit of the case, as suffice is madewith a direction to the appellate authority, namely, theConservator of F`orests (Territorial Circle), respondentNo.3 herein , to hear the appeal preferred by the writpetitioner afresh, and to dispose of the same within aperiod of one month from the date of receipt of thisorder keeping in view of the related provisions of lawlaid down under The Sikkim Forests, Water Coursesand Road Reserve Preservation and Protection Off ice Note as toaction (if any)taken on Order `Ju, Ifedc-fty44Luckc r- C r Order with Signature

1988; The Sikkim Private and Other Non-Forestadds Tree Felling Rules, 2001 and also Rule 10 ofhe Sikkim Forests (Compounding of Offences)Rules, 1998. We do accordingly.

6. It is made clear that the writ petitioner is atliberty to file a recast memo of appeal before theappellate authority, if so advised, within a period of twoweeks' from today. The earlier interim orders which waspassed on 14.5.2004 and 15.7.2004 passed in themain writ petition and CMA No.28/2004 are herebymerged with this order.

7. For the reasons, observations and directionsmade above, the writ petition is disposed of thus settingaside the impugned orders,but no order as to costs.

".p.ifeJhadae

Off ice Note as toaction (if any)taken on Order