Conditions for tree felling permissions can include time limits; a right to cut trees does not extend indefinitely past permission expiry.

1. The petitioner who is a citizen of India, is the owner of a property known as "Dergun" situated at Vaghurem Satari, Valpoi, which is surveyed under No. 47/1 By this writ petition under Art 226 of the Constitution of India, he challenges the demand notices bearing Nos. 31 Off-Case/ 85-86/1169 and 31 Off-Case/85-86/1178 both dt. 21st Oct. 1985.

2. The petitioner's case is that he was granted a permission dt. 14-2-1984 for felling trees in his above identified property Dergun and under the said license, the time for cutting the trees was limited to 90 days from the date of license. The said license is deemed to have been issued under the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 , for no permission for cutting trees in private property is required under the Forest Act, 1927, Chapter VI of the Goa, Daman and Diu Forest Rules, 1964, having been struck down by the judicial Commissioner's Court. The petitioner was not able to fell the trees within the period specified in the license for want of labourers and, therefore, by his letter dt. 14th May 1984, he applied to the Deputy Conservator of Forests for extension of the period of permission by three months. The Deputy Conservator of Forests did not, however, care to reply to the said letter. In Feb and Mar. 1985. the Round Forester, Bhironda, seized some trees that according to him, had been illegally felled in the said property Dergun. Thereafter, by the impugned demand notices, the Range Forest Officer, Valpoi, required the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,080 - and Rs. 27,350 - respectively. towards offences allegedly committed by the petitioner for illicit cutting of trees in the said private property.

3. These demand notices are being challenged by the petitioner on several grounds. However, at the time of hearing of the case. Mr. S.K. Kakodkar the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not press the grounds that Ss.16 and 22 of the Goa. Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984, are unconstitutional of and void as the legislative Assembly of Goa. Daman and Diu lacks legislative competence to enact the said Act and that the provisions of the aforesaid S.22 are also unconstitutional as violative of Art.14 of the Constitution since they are harsh, oppressive, unreasonable and arbitrary. He in fact restricted his attack by contending that the felling of trees in the property Dergun cannot be said to be illegal in as much as (i) a permission to fell had been granted on 14-2-1984; (ii) limiting the permission to a specified period and the rules, if any,authorising the same is ultra vires and void, arbitrary and unconstitutional; (3) the application for the extension of the permission period made on 14-5-1984 was pending before the Deputy Conservator; and (iv) in any event, the extension not having been received, the same ought to have been deemed to have been granted

4. As regards the first ground of attack, the learned counsel invited our attention to the relevant provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 . He submitted that S.8 deals with restriction on felling and removal of trees and provides that the felling of any tree is prohibited unless a previous permission of the Tree Officer is obtained. S.9 deals with the procedure for obtaining permission to fell, cut, remove or dispose of a tree. Sub-Sec. (5) lays down that every permission granted under the Act shall be in such form and subject to such conditions, including taking of security for ensuring regeneration of the area and rep