-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 101 OF 2011 Shri Inacio D' Souza, Aged about 61 years, r/o. Paliem, Uccassaim, Bardez, Goa, Senior Citizen …... Petitioner V e r s u s 1. State of Goa, through P. P. 2. Shri Diago Ribeiro, major of age, r/o. Paliem, Uccassaim, Bardez, Goa. (Following are the registered addresses of the parties) …... Respondent Ms. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent no.1. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Respondent no.2. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 10 th October, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Ms. Asha Dessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent no.1 and Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents waive service. 4. The above Petition challenges the Order dated 11.07.2011 passed by -2- the Appellate Authority Conservator of Forests (Conservation) Forest Department, Panaji, whereby the Petitioner was directed to cut two coconut trees within 15 days from the receipt of the Judgment. 5. The main grievance of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the Appellate Authority has acted with material irregularity whilst passing the impugned Order as this Court whilst remanding the matter to the Conservator by Oral Judgment dated 02.05.2011 had directed the said Authority to consider the validity of the Order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 03.11.09. It is further submitted that the Conservator instead of deciding such validity, went to the extent of disposing the dispute on merits which was not before the Authority. 6. Shri Bhobe, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2, in fact, did not dispute the said aspect but, however, pointed out that the Petitioners are unnecessarily delaying the proceedings on false pretext which results in irreparable damage to the Respondent no.2 as, according to him, the trees are causing grave nuisance to Respondent no.2. The learned Counsel further pointed out that no indulgence is to be given to the Petitioner in view of his conduct in delaying of the disposal of the proceedings. 7. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on going through the record, I find that the contention of Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.2, is justified as the impugned Order discloses that the Petitioner failed to remain present before the Conservator on two occasions on the dates fixed by the Authority. This conduct cannot be accepted -3- and, as such, the Petitioner will be liable to pay the costs to the Respondent no.2, for delaying the proceedings without any just cause. 8. Be that as it may, the Conservator instead of deciding the legality and validity of the Order dated 03.11.2009, went to decide the matter on merits which was not before the said Conservator. As such, the impugned Order cannot be sustained as it was passed in erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. As such, the Conservator will have to decide the legality and propriety of the said Order passed by the Deputy Collector on its own merits afresh in accordance with law. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The impugned Order dated 11.07.2011 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the Appeal No. 15/2010 preferred by the Petitioner on its own merits in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law. (iii) The Petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent no.2 as condition precedent within one week from today. (iv) The Appellate Authority shall decide the said Appeal as expeditiously as possible in, any event, on or before 30.11.2011. (v) The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 20.10.2011 at 11.00 a.m. -4- (vi)Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (vii) The Petition stands disposed of accordingly. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*