wp6829.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6829 OF 2009 Hitesh s/o Jethalal Patel, R/o-Nimgaon Korhale, Tq-Rahata, Dist-Ahmednagar, Through his Power of Attorney Jethalal s/o Ratansi Patel, R/o-Nimgaon Korhale, Tq-Rahata, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in the Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai-32, 2) The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Maharashtra State, Nagpur, 3) The Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection), Maharashtra State, Nagpur, 4) The Chief Conservator of Forest (Territorial), Nashik, wp6829.09 2 5) The Deputy Conservator of Forest, Ahmednagar, 6) The Assistant Conservator of Forest, Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar, 7) The Range Forest Officer, Kopargaon, Dist-Ahmednagar, 8) Round Forest Officer, Kopargaon, Dist-Ahmednagar, (Rahata). ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.S. Choudhari Advocate h/f. Shri. Y.S. Choudhari Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner has challenged notice dated 2nd September 2009, issued by the wp6829.09 3 Respondents (Exhibit P-39 Page No.111). Shri. Choudhari, learned counsel submits that Petitioner's saw mill is not situated within 10 k.m. radius of reserved forest. The Survey Nos. 23, 24 and 26 were deleted from the list of the reserved forest, according to the learned counsel. 3. Consequent to the notice issued, Respondents filed affidavit in reply. We have perused the same. Learned A.G.P. on instructions from the Officer of the concerned Department, submits that in case the Petitioner files reply to the impugned notice, appropriate order would be passed in respect of the issue raised herein, and thereafter if the Petitioner is aggrieved, the Petitioner may resort to appropriate alternate remedy of appeal. 4. We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the record placed before us. Whether the Petitioner's saw mill is within 10 wp6829.09 4 k.m. radius of the reserved forest, is a question of fact. Whether the Survey Nos. 23, 24 and 26 were deleted, at the relevant point of time, from the list of reserved forest, would be an issue required to be dealt with by going through the entire record maintained by the concerned office. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that matter shall be addressed first by the Authority designated under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Bombay Forest Rules, 1942. We, therefore, pass following order:- 5. The Petitioner is entitled to file comprehensive reply to the notice impugned herein, dated 2nd September, 2009, within TWO WEEKS from today. The Respondent Authority is directed to deal with the matter in accordance with the record and the policy decisions taken from time to time and pass appropriate order in respect of the issues: i) Whether the Petitioner's saw wp6829.09 5 mill is situated within 10 k.m. radius of the reserved forest. ii) Whether the subject area was deleted from the list of reserved forest, and any other relevant issues. 6. In case the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Authority concerned, then the Petitioner is entitled to file statutory appeal against such order. 7. We direct the Respondent Authority to decide the matter arising out of the notice impugned herein, within TEN WEEKS from today, on its own merit. All issues are kept open. For a period of TEN WEEKS from today, the Respondents shall maintain status-quo in respect of running of Petitioner's saw mill. 8. With the above observations, the Writ wp6829.09 6 Petition is disposed of. 9. Authenticated copy of this order be provided to the learned counsel for the Petitioner. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/NOV11