Mishra, J.

These petitions have been listed before us on a reference by Bakthavatsalam, J., who has noticed a conflict of his views with a judgment of this Court in Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1985)2 M.L.J. 67. Since we propose to dispose of the petitions by not merely answering the reference but deciding all the issues involved in the case we have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. Before, however, we advert to the facts of the case, we may at this stage refer to the order of reference which says:

"Though the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision of Ratnam, J. in Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam v. State of TamilNadu, (1985)2M.L.J. 67, which supports his contention, the learned Government Advocate appearing for forest cases draws my attention to Sec.3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 (XVII of 1955), and submits that this provision was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge, when the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner was delivered. The learned Government Advocate contends that the term ‘damage’ which occurs in Sec.3(2) of