IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P.CHALY, JJ.
PURUSHOTHAMAN P., S/O. LATE P. N. PARAMESWARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA - Respondent
WP(C) NO.12616 OF 2021
Decided on : 24-06-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 51-A(g) – Writ of mandamus – Violation of public interest – Kerala Forest [Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned] Rules, 1995 – Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 – Instant public interest writ petition is filed by petitioner for reliefs to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to depute Central Bureau of Investigation or any other appropriate Central Investigating Agency, to find out real culprits involved in forest robbery case, recently happened in State of Kerala – To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding respondents that all enquiries conducted by Government should be under supervision of this Court in this matter – To issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding 4th respondent, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Government of India, New Delhi, represented by its Director General of Forest, to investigate matter and take appropriate action
Finding of the court:
Exhibit-P1 order issued by Principal Secretary to Government, is stated to have been withdrawn; Exhibit-P2 is only an ordinance relating to vesting of private forests and assignment, and it has nothing to do with alleged illegal felling of reserved trees in private lands; Exhibit-P6 is a document stated to have been obtained from social media, and nothing can be inferred as regards influence of any prime accused, in matter of felling of reserved trees in private lands. – Court find that it is a letter of an Ex-MLA, Kalpetta, Wayanad district, forwarding a representation submitted by one Mr. T.M. Baby, President, Wayanad District Revenue Patta land Protection Samithi, to consider a request for issuance of special order regarding felling of reserved trees standing in revenue patta land in Wayanad district, and letter does not indicate any fraudulent or illegal activity – According to Advocate General, incidents brought to notice of forest department have been examined and about 110 O.Rs were stated to have been registered in various police stations across State of Kerala and 600 cubic metres of timber has been seized – Government, by issuing orders, have constituted Special Investigation Teams with Senior Police Officers, to monitor investigation. Because of ambiguity in Exhibit-P1 order same sought to have been withdrawn – Court find that instant public interest writ petition is bereft of details and does not satisfy requirement of a Public Interest Litigation – Averments are vague and we find force in arguments of learned Advocate General – Court is of view that principles enunciated in decisions cited supra would squarely applicable to facts of this case. –
Result : Writ Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S. Manikumar, J.
Instant public interest writ petition is filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding the respondents that all enquiries conducted by the Government should be under the supervision of this Court in this matter.
(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 4th respondent, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Government of India, New Delhi, represented by its Director General of Forest, to investigate the matter and take appropriate action.
2. Short facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are, petitioner, claiming to be a senior freelance journalist and a political party worker, has preferred this Public Interest Litigation, with the objective of safeguarding the Constitutional rights of the people, since he had faced a fraudulent act and violation of public interest by respondent Nos.1 to 3, viz., State of Kerala, represented by its Principal Secretary; Forest Department of Kerala, represented by its Secretary; and Revenue Department, represented by its Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram respectively.
3. Petitioner has further stated that across the State, trees grown on private lands, have been cut and removed for commercial purposes over the past year, due to a controversial order, being used as a cover by the powerful timber mafia. Petitioner has alleged that a section of revenue, forest officials, and politicians of the ruling party, are conspiring with the timber mafia and they have used the lockdown, following the COVID-19 pandemic, as an additional cover, to cut and transport valuable trees from private lands. Referring to Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India, he submitted that it is the fundamental duty to protect and preserve forests, lakes and rivers, and to have compassion for every living being. According to him, the phrase “living being” can be interpreted to include trees as well.
4. Petitioner has further stated that Kerala witnessed a large-scale felling of protected trees from private land, based on an amendment in the Kerala Forest [Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned] Rules, 1995, which permitted the private land owners to chop all reserved trees, except sandalwood. The order was heavily criticized. The amendment could facilitate cutting and removing of thousands of trees in Kerala.
5. Petitioner has further stated that Kerala's Forest Department officials raided a timber mill at Perumbavoor in Ernakulam District and seized rosewood worth more than Rs.50 lakhs. It was being transported illegally from the environmentally fragile Mutti South Village in the northern hill district of Wayanad. Later, officials seized two truckloads of teak from Pulakkod near Chelakkara in Trissur District and in another incident in Marayoor, Idukki, found cut and transport even sandalwood trees from private lands.
6. Petitioner has further stated that from reliable sources, he came to understand that timber worth at least rupees hundred crores has been felled and removed in the last one year and this issue is enquired by a team of District Forest Officers [DFO] of the Forest Department. He has also stated that the matter is being enquired into by the Government, in which, the Government is also involved. He apprehend that there will not be a just and fair investigation would happen. The Government and its Subordinate Departments would try to protect their interests, and therefore, this court's intervention is highly necessary, in order to depute a Central Investigation Agency like CB
Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr. 1994 1 SCR 857
A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718)
BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India and Others (2002) 2 SCC 333
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Others
Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi
Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran 1996 CrLJ 3983
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D)By Lrs. and Anr. v. B.D. Agarwal and Ors. (2003) 5 SCALE 138
Dr. D.C. Wadhwa (Dr) v. State of Bihar (1987) 1 SCC 378
Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. v. C.K.Rajan & Others reported in (2003) 7 SCC 546
Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors. reported in (2007) 14 SCC 281
Hussainara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary
Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305
Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani AIR 1979 SCC 468
Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India and Others 1989 Supp1 SCC 251
Rohit Pandey v. Union of India reported in (2005) 13 SCC 702
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India
Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi and Others (1987) 1 SCC 227
Sachidanand Panday and Another v. State of West Bengal and others (1987) 2 SCC 295
State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu (1995) 1 LLJ 622 SC
Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High Court reported in (2004) 13 SCC 485
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.