N.M. Jamdar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the petition is taken up for disposal.

2. The Petitioner has challenged the order passed by Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Panaji Goa, the Appellate Authority, dated 7 March 2018 and has sought to restrain the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 from felling any trees at the proposed Mopa Airport site in terms of the permission granted by the Tree Officer, dated 6 February 2018 to cut 21703 trees.

3. The Petitioner has made necessary averments regarding the locus of the petition to maintain the petition in public interest and as the Petitioner fulfills the criteria for maintaining the Public Interest Litigation, we have entertained the petition.

4. The Petitioner had filed an Appeal No.3/2018 before the Appellate Authority constituted under the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984, challenging the permission granted by Respondent No.1-the Tree Officer for felling 21703 trees at Mopa Airport site. The petition was mentioned for circulation yesterday by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the proceedings have been disposed of but the copy of the order is not available and the tree cutting is going on. We kept the matter on board today. When the matter is taken up today, the copy of the order dated 7 March 2018 passed by the Conservator of Forest, is handed over by the learned Advocate General.

5. We have heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. D. Lawande, learned Advocate General for the Respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is complete non application of mind, by both the Tree Officer while passing the order granting permission and by the Conservator while disposing of the Appeal. The learned counsel submitted that the Petitioner had approached the National Green Tribunal challenging the aspect of Environmental clearance to the Project and the National Green Tribunal had earlier granted an ad-interim order restraining the Respondents from cutting any trees. He submitted that thereafter the order was modified on the statement made by the learned Advocate General that the proceedings can be taken under the Go, Daman and Diu Preservation of Tree Act, 1984 or the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Thereafter the Tree Officer granted permission on 6 February 2018, which was challenged by the Petitioner by filing an appeal. The learned counsel submitted that while the Officers have disposed of the proceedings under the Act in most perfunctory manner, large scale cutting of trees is going on and it is causing substantial damage to the ecology of the area. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this is a fit case where the appeal needs to be remanded for reconsideration. He submitted that pending the appeal, interim protection as sought for be granted or otherwise irretrievable situation would result.

7. The learned Advocate General submitted that land has been acquired several years ago for the project, and the environmental clearance under the Environment Protection Act has been duly obtained and though it has been challenged before the National Green Tribunal, there is no interim relief staying the project. He submitted that initially the Tribunal had granted an ad-interim order which has been modified/vacated on 22 November 2017. He submitted that there are reasons in the file which would support the conclusion reached by the Tree Officer. He submitted that the Tree Officer is not expected to pass a detailed order. He submitted that even assuming the Petitioners are right in their contention regarding the lack of reasoning in the impugned order, no interim protection as sought for during the pendency of the Appeal be granted. The learned Advocate General submitted that at the most the prayer of interim order during the pendency of the appeal, if the appeal