Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Lakshminarayanan, J
K. Anandh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu – Respondent
Writ Petition No.32065 of 2025
For the Petitioner: Mr.K.Krishnan
For the Respondents: Dr.T.Seenivasan
The use of mechanical equipment for the removal of invasive species should be permitted where necessary, balancing ecological concerns with effective management.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - The petitioner challenges a circular that restricts mechanical equipment for the removal of an invasive species, arguing that such restrictions impede effective removal. The court acknowledges a prior order allowing machinery use for removal but notes concerns regarding the environmental impact of heavy machinery. A revised circular allows certain machinery, addressing the petitioner's grievances. (Paras 2, 6, 8)
(B) Environmental Law - The court emphasizes the need for balance between effective species removal and environmental preservation, establishing that mechanical methods are sometimes necessary and should not be unnecessarily restricted. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a forest contractor, challenges a circular restricting mechanical methods for uprooting invasive species, citing difficulties in removal if confined to manual methods only.
Findings of Court:
A revised circular permitting specific machinery for tree removal has resolved the petitioner’s issue, allowing effective management of invasive species without excessive environmental degradation.
Issues: Whether the circular's restrictions impede effective removal of invasive species and the balance between mechanical assistance and ecological impact.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the necessity of machinery in specific environments must be recognized to prevent stalling invasive species removal while considering ecological concerns.
Result: Writ Petition disposed; no costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges circular imposing restrictions. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner challenges circular restricting removal methods. (Para 2) |
| 3. previous court order not adhered to by department. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. revised action plan allows mechanized removal. (Para 6) |
| 5. petitioner’s grievance addressed, petition disposed. (Para 7) |
ORDER
Heard Mr. K.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Dr.T.Seenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner claims to be a Forest Contractor, who challenges the Circular dated 09.03.2025 in Ref. No. SF2/2004037/2025. His plea is that the second respondent-Forest Department has inserted a Clause stating that removal of Seemai Karuvelam Trees viz. Prosopis Juliflora, should be done only by manual uprooting and not by using any heavy mechanical equipment.
3. Mr. Krishnan drew the attention of this Court to an order dated
28.03.2025, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP (MD) No.3633 of 2014. In paragraph No. 5 of the said order, the Division Bench had stated as follows:
“5. We are afraid that such a condition will, in fact, stall the entire exercise of the removal of prosopis juliflora. When invasive species, like senna spectabilis are being uprooted by using machinery like JCB, it might not be feasible to remove mature prosopis juliflora without the aid of equipment like JCB. Normally, Prosopis juliflora is found spreading in the forests only in peripheral areas and not in the core areas. We, therefore, direct the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) to permit the use of JCB to remove the prosopis juliflora wherever necessary.”
Relying on this observation, Mr. K.Krishnan states that despite the order passed by this Court directing the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, who is also the head of Forest Force, to permit the use of JCB, the Forest Department continues to insist that Seemai Karuvelam Trees/Prosopis Juliflora must be uprooted only by using manual labour.
4. Taking note of the fact that the order of the Division Bench is indirectly being flouted, I requested the learned Government Pleader to seek the assistance of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF), Tamil Nadu, in this regard.
5. In compliance with the order, Mr.R.Srinivas Reddy, IFS, who is the PCCF and the Head of the Forest Force, is present in Court today to assist the Special Government Pleader. He pointed out that the order dated 28.03.2025 (extracted above) had been modified by the Division bench on
04.04.2025. In the modified order, paragraphs 5 and 6 reads as follows:
“5. With regard to the removal of Prosopis juliflora in forest area is concerned, on last occasion, we passed an order directing the Forest Department to permit the use of JCB to remove the Prosopis juliflora in the peripheral area. We have considered about the peripheral area in respect thereof. Today, the leamed Special Government Pleader would make a mention by circulating a letter from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force) to him stating that the Prosopis juliflora is not only in peripheral area but also in core area, if heavy machinery such as JCBs are used can lead to significant soil disturbance. The movement of heavy equipment can compact the soil, degrade the structure and damage the root systems of surrounding native plants.
6. In this regard, letter does not address about the (i) peripheral area where eco-system is not there (ii) It also does not delineate about the alternatives, therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader is requested to come up with the instructions as to what they proposed to do considering the removal of Prosopis juliflora in peripheral, core and in intermediate areas. If JCB cannot be used, whether in any particular area smaller machineries along with plucking devices can be used or whether it would be enough to cut the trees alone and whether by debaking it can be prevented from regenera
