Case: Bachan Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others

1 and 2 who were the contractors, cut 4400 marked trees within that period which expired on April 15, 1978. As the felling of all the marked trees could not be completed within this very short period specified in the permit, the petitioners applied for extension of time, but received no reply.13. Certain documents from the correspondence which passed from the Chief Conservator and the Deputy Secretary to the Government in Punjab Government, which have been annexed to the petition, show that approval for making further trees for sale in Mirzapur was also sanctioned. The petitioners made further representation for extension of the time for felling and removing the remaining trees, but nothing came out of it.14. According to the averments in para 22 of the petition, on December 12, 1978, Shri Balwinder Singh, Agriculture and Forest Minister, Punjab, along with some officers of the Forest Department went to village Mirzapur, summoned the right-holders of that village in the Rest House and advised them that they should not press for the issuance of a permit and allow the agreement with petitioners 1 and 2 to lapse as the same could be enforced only within the time stipulated in the agreement deed, expiring on March, 31, 1979. The Minister, it is alleged, further suggested to the right-holders to sell their trees to Shri Bhagat Singh son of S. Lachhman Singh, Minister in Haryana State, who, according to the Minister, would give them more money for their trees. The Minister further promised that if the right-holders enter into an agreement for sale of trees with the said Bhagat Singh, he would get the permit issued immediately. The right-holders, however, did not agree and informed the Minister that they had already received the entire sale consideration from petitioners 1 and 2 and they would not dishonour the agreement. It is further alleged that the Minister left the place threatening the right-holders that he would see how they would get the permit to sell. It is also stated that this Bhagat Singh was a rival bidder in an auction of Bhojpalara Forest (Haryana) and competed with Shri Ranjit Singh, brother of petitioners 1 and 2, on October 10, 1978. The said Ranjit Singh, however, outbid Bhagat Singh at that auction. For this reason, it is alleged, Bhagat Singh had a grudge against petitioners 1 and 2. The State has controverted some of these allegations.15. In his counter-affidavit, Shri Balwinder Singh, Forest Minister admitted that he had visited village Mirzapur on December 12, 1978, but denied the rest of the allegations.16. It is further alleged that on January 20, 1979, the petitioners made a representation to the Chief Minister, complaining of delay in not issuing the permit, though the felling season was running out.17. Ultimately on February 14, 1979, the petitioners moved the High Court by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents to issue a final permit in favour of the petitioners. The High Court issued notice of motion to the respondents for February 27, 1979. On that date, counsel for the respondents appeared and prayed for time to file a counter-affidavit. At his request, the respondents were granted time to file the counter-affidavit by March 15, 1979. Before that date, however, on March 9, 1979, the Punjab Government issued a notification under Section 5 of the said Act prohibiting for 20 years the cutting of trees or timber or brush wood for any purpose from village Mirzapur, only. Thereupon, the petitioners amended the writ petition and challenged this notification, also, inter alia, on the ground that it amounted to an unreasonable restriction on their Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.18. It is contended by Mr. F. S. Nariman, appearing for the appellants, that the time for felling trees specified in the permit has been validly issued by the respondents to the petitioners and since time for felling the trees was not the essence of the matter, the permit already issued for felling 7165 trees, in any case ought to have been honoured, and the time of the permit extended. Petitioners had already paid the entire sale consideration to the right-holders; that the impugned notification issued by the respondents during the pendency of the writ petition suffered from arbitrariness and un-reasonableness because the felling of trees in the area of village Mirzapur had remained prohibited for a period of more than 35 years under successive notifications issued under the said Act, and the absolute ban on cutting trees and timber for a period of another 20 years was manifestly an unreasonable restriction, offending the petitioners Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. further submitted that he does not want to elaborate or develop his arguments further in this Court and that his purpose of enumerating all these facts and making these short submissions is that important questions of law based on undisputed facts had arisen for decision in this case and in the circumstances, it was not fair and proper for the High Court to summarily dismiss his writ petition without dealing with the question raised on merits. It is maintained that since the felling season is of short duration and the time granted by the right-holders under the agreement to petitioners 1 and 2 for completing the felling and removal of trees was about to expire shortly, the remedy by way of a suit was not an efficacious and speedy remedy.19. We have heard the arguments of Shri Hardev Singh, also. Without giving any finding on the questions raised or the reliefs sought in the writ petition, we think, that important questions of law had been raised in this case which could properly be determined by the High Court in the exercise of its special jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.20. It was, therefore, not proper for the High Court to dispose of this matter in the summary manner, it did.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Without giving any finding on the questions raised or the reliefs sought in the writ petition, we think, that important questions of law had been raised in this case which could properly be determined by the High Court in the exercise of its special jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.20. It was, therefore, not proper for the High Court to dispose of this matter in the summary manner, it did.