IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15 of 2010. Date of decision: 26.3.2010 ________________________________________________________ Bhawani Prasad & ors. ….. Petitioners Versus State of H.P & ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioners: Mr.Puneet Bali, Advocate with Ms.Aruna Sharma, Advocate vice Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General with S/Sh.R.M.Bisht and Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.Gs for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Tarlok Chauhan, counsel for respondent No.3. Mr.Vijay Chaudhary, counsel for respondent No.4. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to the order dated 28.1.2009 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bharmour Forest Division, Bharmour whereby the application filed by Sh.Khem Chand, Special Power of Attorney of Sh.Ravinder Lal Kuthiala who, in turn, is alleged to be the General Power of Attorney of the petitioners for the demarcation/ enumeration and marking of diseased, dry and fallen trees in Khasra No.7/2/2 in Khata No.1/1 Min Moza Dharbhatu/193 Pargana Trehta, Sub Tehsil Holi, District Chamba has been rejected. The grounds for rejection of the application read as under:- “However, the issue of felling of dry/fallen and green trees in private forests under Land Reservation Act, 1978 was decided by the Hon’ble High Court, Shimla in LPA No.152/2007 with LPA No.1, 2 of 2008 and CWP No.1661 of 2007 and 11 of 2008 decided on 28th May, 2008. The decision of Hon’ble High Court with regard to felling of dry or green trees is summarized as under:- 1) In absence of clear-cut acceptable definition of the word ‘forest’, the Court has clarified that “any area which is covered mainly with trees and undergrowth would be deemed to be a forest and therefore, felling of trees from private lands under the provisions of the Land Preservation Act cannot be permitted till the definition of the word forest as suggested by the Expert Committee is approved by the Apex Court. This contention is accordingly rejected. 2) Discussing on CWP No.11 of 2008, the Court has decided that the ten year felling programme under H.P Land Preservation Act, 1978 for taking up felling in private lands has not yet been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The verdict is as follows:- “Since, there is no material to show that the working plan of the 10 year felling Plan under which the petitioner has been granted permission has been approved by the Central Government. The petitioners cannot be permitted to fell any trees. The writ petition as accordingly rejected.” From the above decision it is clear that, the ban on felling of any kind in private Forests whether green or dry has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, order for felling or hading over of the marked lot to the Forest Corporation is not possible at this stage. Divisional Forest Officer, Bharmour Forest Division, Bharmour” The grounds taken by the DFO, Bharmour for rejecting the application are not at all legal. He has totally mis-interpreted the judgment of this Court dated 28th May, 2008 passed in LPA No.152 of 2007 and other connected matters. The Apex Court while giving specific directions to the State of Himachal Pradesh and other hill regions passed an order in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad’s case, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- “2. In a ‘forest’, the State Government may either departmentally or through the State Forest Corporation remove fallen trees or fell and remove diseased or dry standing timber from areas other than those notified under Section 18 or Section 35 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 or any other Act banning such felling or removal of trees. 3. For this purpose, the State Government is to constitute an expert Committee comprising a representative from MOEF, a representative of the State Government, two private experts of eminence and the MD of the State Forest Corporation (as Member Secretary), who will fix the qualitative and quantitative norms for the felling of fallen trees and diseased and standing timber. The State shall ensure that the trees so felled and removed are in accordance with these norms.” A question had been raised by the Forest Corporation in the LPA No.152 of 2007 decided by this Court that no permission of the Apex Court is required for removal and felling of fallen trees, dry and diseased standing timber from the forest land not falling within the purview of the Wild Life Act. This Court had interpreted the aforesaid directions in the following manner:- “However, as far as the report of the Committee constituted under Section 3 of the directions issued specifically in relation to Himachal Pradesh is concerned, it has to be read in conjunction with the permission granted in direction-2 therein. The Apex Court in direction 2 permitted the State Government departmentally or through the Forest Corporation to remove fallen trees or fell and remove diseased trees and dry standing timber from forest areas other than those notified under the Wild Life Protection Act. The Committee was to fix the qualitative and quantitative norms for felling of fallen trees, diseased trees and dry standing timber. However, directions had been issued that the State shall ensure that the trees shall be removed in accordance with the norms. Unlike the reports of the Committees fixed under the general directions, there was no order directing that the report of this Committee be filed in the Supreme Court. In our view, approval of this report was not required because the Supreme Court had directed the State Government to follow the norms fixed by the Committee.” We had accepted the contention of the Forest Corporation in the following directions:- “In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that the direction given by the learned Single Judge prohibiting the removal of fallen timber, diseased and dry standing timber is not correct and the same is set-aside. However, in terms of the orders of the Apex Court even fallen trees, diseased and dry standing timber cannot be removed from the areas falling within the purview of the Wild Life Act. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.” This Court had summarized its findings in finding Nos.3 and 4 which are relevant for this case and read as under:- “(3) Report of the Committee constituted pursuant to direction No.3 in respect of specific directions given to the State has to be complied by the State without any further orders from the apex court. (4) The State Government is entitled either departmentally or through the State Forest Corporation to remove fallen trees or fell and remove diseased trees and dry standing timber except from areas notified under Section 18 or Section 35 of the Wife Life Protection Act or any other Act banning such felling or removal of trees.” A bare perusal of the portions of the judgment quoted here-in-above clearly shows that we had held that the report of the Committee constituted vide direction No.3 of the order of the Apex Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad’s case does not require to be approved by the Apex Court. We had also held that the State Government either departmentally or through the State Forest Corporation can remove fallen trees or fell and remove diseased trees and dry standing timber from the forest land except in the areas notified under Section 18 or Section 35 of the Wild Life Protection Act. Beyond this, we had made no observation which prohibited the removal and felling of diseased trees and dry standing timber. Our said judgment has been totally misinterpreted by the DFO concerned. We, therefore, set aside the order of the DFO dated 28.1.2009. The DFO has only rejected the application by misinterpreting the judgment of this Court and has not gone into the merits of the case. We, therefore, are of the view that the DFO, Bharmour Forest Division should reconsider the application on merits. Therefore, we direct that the DFO, Bharmour should reconsider the application on merits and pass a reasoned order on the application filed by Sh.Ravinder Lal Kuthiala through Sh.Khem Chand, SPA within six weeks from today. We may make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the case and it is for the DFO concerned to decide the application, on merits, uninfluenced by any observations made here-in-above except insofar as they relate to the interpretation of our previous judgment passed in LPA No.152 of 2007 and other connected matters. Needless to say, if any party is aggrieved by the order of the DFO, it can challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. CMP Nos.1154 and 1064 of 2010 In view of the orders passed in the writ petition, it is not necessary to implead the applicant(s) as parties in this petition. The applications are disposed of. CMP Nos.33 and 1155 of 2010 In view of the orders passed in the writ petition, the applications shall stand disposed of. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge March 26, 2010 ( Sanjay Karol ) (m) Judge