IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21351 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.08.2009 Rai Singh Raju ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : R.K.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for the respondents. ***** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) CM No. 14041 of 2009 Heard. Rejoinder enclosed with the application is taken on record and CM disposed off. CWP No. 21351 of 2008 This petition purports to have been filed in public interest. It prays for a mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 6 to take immediate remedial steps to stop illegal cutting of trees by the Sarpanch of village Dadial at the behest of the forest officials in connivance with CWP No. 21351 of 2008 (O&M) [2] the police officials. A further writ in the nature of prohibition has also been prayed for directing the respondents not to utilise the official machinery for helping those indulging in illegal felling of the trees from the forest or shamlat land. Respondents No.1 to 6 have in response to a notice issued by this Court filed their affidavits, in which, it is inter-alia stated that the complaint regarding illegal felling of trees has been looked into by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur and found to be without any substance. A copy of the report submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate has also been enclosed as Annexure R-1 to the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner. The report inter-alia states that investigation conducted into the allegations made against Shri Subh Kumar, Sarpanch of village Dadial, have not substantiated the said allegations. It also states that there is a factional rivalry between Rai Singh and the Sarpanch Shri Subh Kumar, because of which they keep making complaints against each other. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner all the same contended that the report submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, was self contradictory, in as much as the report while giving a clean chit to Subh Kumar Sarpanch records a finding that a number of trees were found to have been felled in the in the forest land while some trees were found to have fallen due to storm. It is also according to the learned counsel evident from the report that trees have been cut from the panchayat land also. It is submitted that the investigation conducted by the Senior Superintendent of Police was not CWP No. 21351 of 2008 (O&M) [3] fair and has not been able to arrive at factually correct findings on account of various reasons including the political influence which Subh Kumar, Sarpanch, wields in the area. On behalf of the respondents, it was on the other hand argued by Ms. Dayal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab that the writ petition was more in the nature of enforcement of individual rights of the petitioner than in public interest. She submitted that the petitioner was claiming a certain area to be in his ownership which aspect was being examined by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (D), Hoshiarpur, on account of the rival claims made by the petitioner on the one hand and the Panchayat on the other. There is considerable unpleasantness and litigation between the two factions in the village which gives rise to repeated complaints by the two factions against each other. The complaint referred to in the writ petition is according to the learned counsel one such instance where the petitioner is accusing Subh Kumar, Sarpanch of illegal felling of trees and sale of the timber in connivance with the officers of the forest and police department. She argued that if the enquiry conducted by the Senior Superintendent of Police was not satisfying the petitioner for any reason, the matter could be looked into by the Deputy Commissioner to allay the apprehension of the petitioner that the matter has not been dealt with fairly and objectively. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made at the bar. It is true that the petitioner and the Panchayat have locked horns in litigation over the land which the petitioner claims to his own while the Panchayat claims the same to be the Panchayat land. That aspect is pending adjudication before the CWP No. 21351 of 2008 (O&M) [4] Addl. Deputy Commissioner (D), Hoshiarpur. We do not in the present proceedings propose to examine the merits of the claims made by either party in the said proceedings for observation made by us may prejudice one party or the other. What is noteworthy is that because of the said litigation, there is considerable room for the parties making allegations and counter allegations against each other. While the respondents assert that the allegations regarding illegal felling of trees in connivance with the forest officers and police department are on account of the said unpleasant litigation going on between the parties the petitioner insists that the illegal felling is going on by the Sarpanch of the village in connivance with the local officials. We are unable to effectively determine the controversy in these proceedings. In the ordinary course, we may not have entertained this petition because it has an element of personal interest and bias of the petitioner mixed with so-called public interest for saving the trees from being illegally felled and removed. Keeping in view, however, the fact that the allegations suggest removal of valuable green cover whether in panchayat land or from the forest which is said to be in close proximity of the said land, we deem it fit to direct that the petitioner can make a suitable representation making specific allegations against the persons who are alleged to be indulging in such felling. If such an application/representation is made by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, within two months from today, the Deputy Commissioner would do well to look into the said application/representation personally taking into consideration the material that the parties may offer, and satisfy himself whether any CWP No. 21351 of 2008 (O&M) [5] felling has taken place and if so whether the same was legal and if it was not, initiate action against those responsible for such illegality. Beyond that, we do not consider it necessary or proper to say anything at this stage. Writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 21.08.2009 'ravinder'