THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6331 of 2005 DATE: 09.02.2010 Between: Santhoshima Enterprises …Petitioner and The Divisional Forest Officer, Vizianagaram and others …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI V.RAJAGOPAL REDDY COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS : AGP FOR FORESTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6331 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct the respondents to give the petitioner an opportunity for proper assessment/determination of the loss sustained by it on account of keeping the permits granted under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’) in abeyance. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint an independent agency/commissioner for determining the loss sustained by it. Heard Sri V.Rajagopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondents. The petitioner was a lessee of 2000 acres of private forest land of Sarika Mokhasa Village, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The lease was for a period of six years from 10.05.1996 to 10.05.2002. Under the lease, the petitioner is entitled to cut and supply the bamboos to Sewa Paper Mills. After the petitioner felling the bamboos in 202 acres and supplying the same to the said paper mills, respondent No.1 kept the permission granted to the petitioner in abeyance and directed it to stop felling bamboos, vide his order, dated 12.05.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.15115 of 1999, which was allowed by this Court vide order, dated 20.02.2000 and that consequent on the order of this Court, the permission was revived in February, 2000. The petitioner started making representations apart from causing legal notices, dated 29.10.2003 issued for compensating it for the loss suffered on account of keeping the permission in abeyance for a period of two years and nine months. As there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4856 of 2004, which was disposed of by this Court at the admission stage, whereby the petitioner was permitted to give a representation to respondent No.2 and the latter was directed to dispose of the representation as per the terms of the lease agreement and the forest laws. Following the said order, respondent No.1 considered the petitioner’s representation and passed order, dated 04.06.2004 rejecting it’s request for payment of compensation. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a purported appeal before respondent No.2. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17006 of 2004 for a mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to dispose of the so-called appeal filed by the petitioner within a reasonable time after giving an opportunity of being heard. This Court by order, dated 22.09.2004, disposed of the said writ petition with the direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the “appeal” within a period of three (3) months after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. In compliance with the said order, respondent No.2 passed order, dated 29.01.2005 whereby he confirmed the order passed by respondent No.1. At the hearing, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has not given an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in spite of the direction issued by this Court. To the queries of this Court, whether the provisions of the Act empower the authorities to determine the losses, if any, suffered by a permit holder such as the petitioner and whether the appeal claimed to have been filed by the petitioner before respondent No.2 was maintainable, the learned counsel has candidly stated that the provisions of the Act do not specifically empower the authorities to determine the losses, if any, suffered by the permit holders and compensate for such losses. The learned counsel also submitted that the so-called appeal filed by the petitioner is not statutory. From the very nature of the relief claimed by the petitioner, namely, payment of compensation for the alleged loss, it is axiomatic that it is only a competent Civil Court, which can entertain such claim by way of a properly constituted civil suit and determine damages, unless the statutory enactment governing the parties or the terms of the contract provide for such determination by any agency other than the Civil Court. No material is placed before this Court by the learned counsel to show that either in any of the statutory enactments or under any arrangement entered between the petitioner and the respondents, a provision was made for determination of such dispute. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the so-called appeal filed by the petitioner is not maintainable at all. The only remedy, as already noted above, for the petitioner is to approach the competent Civil Court for claiming compensation for the alleged loss. In this view of the matter, whether respondent No.2 in passing order, dated 29.01.2005 had given the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing or not pales into insignificance. Moreover, the petitioner failed to question the said order in this writ petition. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for claiming compensation for the alleged loss, if it so chooses. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.Nos.8385 of 2005 and 32034 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th FEBRUARY, 2010. kvni