IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 724 OF 2011 MR. ANTHONY D'SOUZA., ... Petitioner Versus SHRI SAINATH NATEKAR., ... Respondent Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. Lotlikar, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 8th December, 2011 P.C. Heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri P. S. Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above petition challenges the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 16.08.2011 whereby the petitioner has been directed to appear before the Dy. Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, Mapusa, and place his contention before him. The authority has further held that the case does not come within the purview of such authority. 3. The undisputed fact which culled out from the above petition is that pursuant to a complaint lodged by the respondent, the Dy. Collector by an order dated 05.05.2011 has issued a show cause notice under Section 12-A of the Goa Preservation of Tree ( Amendment) Act, 2008 directing the petitioner either to cut the trees within a period of seven days or to appear in the Court of the Dy. Collector on 31.05.2011 and to show cause why order under sub section 12-A of the said Act should not be passed. The petitioner did not comply with either of the directions but immediately preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the said order of the Dy. Collector. 4. Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order and pointed out that such order has been passed without any report from the Tree Officer. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Dy. Collector has no power to pass an order to cut the trees without obtaining a report from the Tree Officer. The learned Counsel further pointed out that unless and until there was any specific findings by the Dy. Collector that the trees are required to be cut immediately, the question of such direction would not arise at all. The learned counsel further pointed out that the Appellate Authority has erroneously disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the case does not fall within the purview of the Appellate Authority. The learned Counsel submitted that unless and until such report is obtained from the Tree Officer the impugned order could not have been passed and as such the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Shri P. S. Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the petitioner has been directed either to cut the trees or to show cause within a specified time before the Dy. Collector why action should not be taken to cut the trees. The learned Counsel further pointed out that instead of cutting of trees or showing cause as directed, the petitioner unnecessarily preferred an appeal before the Appellate authority without any justification. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the trees which have been ordered to be cut are likely to fall on the residential house occupied by the respondent endangering the life of the inmates therein. The learned Counsel as such submitted that there is no justification for interference by this Court in the impugned order. 6. On perusal of the records as well as the impugned order passed by the authority below, Shri Lotlikar learned Counsel appearing for the respondent is justified to contend that the learned Dy. Collector by his order dated 05.05.2011 directed the petitioner either to cut the trees or to show cause why further order under sub section 12-A of the said Act should not be passed. The petitioner instead of cutting the trees or showing cause has chosen to prefer an appeal before the Appellate authority. In fact, the Appellate authority has obtained a report from the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer dated 30.06.2011 which inter-alia states that the tree no.1 is inclined towards the house of respondent and the said tree may pose danger to the human life and property. Considering the report on record, I find that the contention of Shri De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner to the effect that the impugned order was passed without obtaining any report from any authority does not survive. Be that as it may, the Appellate Authority by the impugned order has directed the petitioner to put up his contention before the Dy. Collector. Hence, the contention of Shri De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has been directed to cut the trees pursuant to the order passed by the Appellate authority is also not justified. The Appellate Authority by the impugned order has directed the petitioner to put up his contention before the Dy. Collector so that the Dy. Collector would pass an appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-A of the said Act. 7. During the course of the submissions, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2 of 2007 dated 5.7.2007. On perusal of the said judgment, the same does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present petition. The said judgment was passed in the proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is not the situation in the present petition. 8. Taking note of the conduct of the petitioner, I find that the attitude of the petitioner appears to be only to delay the proceedings initiated by the respondent. There was no justified reason to file the present petition and to further delay the proceedings. In fact, instead of initiating such proceedings, the petitioner could have shown cause why such trees should not be cut and the Dy. Collector would have by now disposed of the said matter in accordance with law. In view of such conduct of the petitioner, I find that the respondent should be compensated with costs which are fixed at a moderate sum of Rs.1000/- as condition precedent. 9. In view of the above, I find no merit in the above petition and as such the petition stands dismissed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/- to the respondent within four weeks from today. F. M. REIS, J. at*