Parties must be allowed to adduce evidence for a just determination, even after deadlines have expired.

J U D G M E N T

Though prayer in this petition is for a direction to the Tribunal for Ecologically Fragile Lands (First Additional District Judge, Palakkad) (for short, “the Tribunal”) to issue certified copy of order on I.A. Nos.50, 51 and 52 of 2011 and to keep proceedings of the Tribunal pending until the said copy is issued, since I have obtained the gist of orders on the aforesaid applications through the Registrar (Judicial), I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition as if it is in challenge of the orders on the aforesaid applications since otherwise it will only result in unnecessary delay in the disposal of the Original Application before the Tribunal.

2. Petitioner filed O.A. No.28 of 2008 before the Tribunal for a declaration that 34 acres out of 99.21 acres of rubber estate purchased by petitioner is not ecologically fragile land as understood in Act 21 of 2005. There was an interim order passed by the Tribunal permitting petitioner to take latex from the rubber trees in the property as per order dated 04.08.2009 on I.A. No.17 of 2008. The Department challenged that order in W.P.(C) No.29489 of 2009 and when that Writ Petition came up for hearing, this Court disposed of the same vide Ext.P4, judgment dated April 09, 2010 on the submission of learned counsel on both sides that the Original Application could be disposed of as early as possible. This Court directed the Tribunal to dispose of Original Application No.28 of 2008 as early as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of appearance which was fixed as 05.05.2010. It is also directed that until such disposal operation of the order on I.A. No.17 of 2008 will stand in abeyance. It is not disputed that though the period of three months fixed as per Ext.P4, judgment expired by 05.08.2010, time was being extended, be it on the application of parties or on the request of the Tribunal. Now it has reached a stage where petitioner has adduced his evidence and evidence of the respondents is being recorded. Certain witnesses for the respondents have already been examined. At that stage petitioner filed Exts.P5 to P7, applications to re-open evidence of petitioner, recall R.W.2 for further cross-examination and to summon Dr.S. Sankar who is said to be a member of the Expert Committee appointed by the Tribunal to ascertain the ecological feature of the land in question. Those applications were dismissed by the Tribunal.

3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for Forest. As I stated though request in this proceeding is only for a direction to issue certified copy of the impugned orders and keep further proceedings of the Tribunal in abeyance, I considered it proper to dispose of the Original Petition on merit having obtained the gist of the orders through the Registrar (Judicial). Petitioner contended that having regard to the circumstances it is necessary to recall and further examine R.W.2 and examine Dr.S.Sankar as a witness. It is contended that recalling and examination as aforesaid are necessary for a just and fair decision of the case.

4. Learned Government Pleader in response contended that attempt of petitioner is to protract the proceedings and at any rate, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. It is further contended that if at all permission is granted to petitioner to adduce evidence, right of respondents to adduce further evidence consequent to the petitioner adducing further evidence may be reserved. It is contended that time fixed by this Court as per Ext.P4, judgment expired by 05.08.2010 and last deadline fixed was on 29.07.2011 which also has expired.

5. True, this Court has fixed time limit for disposal of the case. But I am inclined to think that parties must be given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. I have gone through the report of the Registrar (Judicial) on the gist of orders dismissing I.A. Nos.50 to 52 of 2011. I.A. No.5