1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.20 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. Shri Diago Ribeiro, Major of age, r/o. Paliem, Uccassaim, Bardez, Goa. 2. State of Goa through P.P. .. Respondents Mrs. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2. CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date : 2 nd May, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Heard Mrs. Dessai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2 3. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 21st September, 2010 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 ('The Act' for short) by which the petitioner/ appellant is directed to cut two coconut trees within 15 days. 4. The said appeal was preferred under Section 15 of The Act by the petitioner herein challenging the order dated 3rd November, 2009 passed by the Deputy Collector directing the petitioner to appear in person. Since the appeal was against the order passed by the Deputy Collector directing the petitioner to appear in person, the only issue before the Appellate Authority was whether such an order could have been passed by the Deputy Collector. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority directing the petitioner to cut two trees, is patently without jurisdiction. The Appellate Authority ought to have given finding as to whether the Deputy Collector has jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to appear in person. On this sole ground alone, the impugned order dated 21st September, 2010 passed by the Appellate Authority is quashed and set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law expeditiously and in any case, on or before 30th August, 2011. 3 5. By order dated 23rd March, 2011, I had called upon respondent no.1 to show cause as to why the order dated 10th February, 2009 and consequently, the order dated 21st September, 2009 passed by the Deputy Collector should not be quashed. 6. It is the case of the petitioner herein that he has complied with the order dated 10th February, 2009 and he has absolutely no grievance about the said order. In this factual background, I do not deem it necessary to go into that aspect in the present proceedings in view of the order I have already passed. 7. The petitioner and respondent no.1 to appear before the Appellate Authority on 7th June, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. 8. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA