IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1970 of 2008 (M/S) Ali Hasan S/o Fateh Deen R/o Village Mehuwala Mafi Shimla Road, Dehradun District Dehradun. …………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Forests, Uttarakhand Sashan, Dehradun. 2. Conservator of Forests, Shivalik Range, Dehradun. 3. Divisional Forest Officer Dehradun Van Prabhag, Dehradun. 4. Executive Engineer U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad, I-225, Nehru Colony, Dehradun. ………… Respondents Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Addl. C.S.C. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. C.S. Rawat, Advocate holding brief of Mr. K.S. Mehta, Advocate For respondent No. 4. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to issue transit permit (fudklh joUuk) in his favour permitting the petitioner to take out the Saal tree situated at plot No. 1453, Indira Nagar Yojana, Dehradun. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 4 U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad made a request to the Forest Department on 30th of June 2008, requesting for valuation of the trees standing on plot No. 1453, before the same are auctioned. Vide letter dated 11th July 2008 (copy Annexure -1 to the writ petition), the Divisional Forest Officer, Dehradun (respondent No. 3) informed the respondent No. 4 that valuation of the tree is assessed at Rs. 15,770/-. The said letter issued by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 4 further shows that for taking out the tree from the plot, fresh permission would be required from the office of respondent No. 3. The petitioner’s case is that in the auction bid he made a highest offer of Rs. 20,000/- which was accepted by the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the tree was cut and permission was sought from respondent No. 3 to take it out. It is alleged that the application was made to the Divisional Forest Officer, Dehradun on 30.08.2008, on which no orders have been passed by the said authority (respondent No. 3). 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the above circumstance, this writ petition is summarily disposed of directing the respondent No. 3 to take a decision as to the permission sought by the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date certified copy of this Order is produced before such authority. (Interim Relief Application No. 7395 of 2008 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. November 06, 2008. H.Negi