IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

WP No. 22850 of 2025

&

WMP Nos.25665 & 48366 of 2025

M/s.GAIA Environmental Conservancy PVT. LTD

Rep. by its Director,

Having registered office at

II/301, Kannadikkad Bund Road,

Maradu Post,Ernakulam,

Kerala-682 304. ... Petitioner

v.

1. State of Tamil Nadu,

Rep. By its Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,

Environment, Climate Change & Forest (FR12) Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The District Collector/Chairman of the Committee,

District Collectorate,

Theni-625 531.

3. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

(Head of Department)

Forest Headquarters Building,

Near Kannikapuram checkpost, Guindy-Velacherry Main Road,

Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

4. District Forest Officer, Theni Division,KRR Nagar, Housing Board Colony, Theni-626 531. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order passed by the 1^st Respondent in G.O.(D) No.42 dated 17.02.2025 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to use modern machinery and equipment in the Petitioner’s lands for clearing the thorns and bushes and to repair the already existing private roads in the said lands.

For Petitioner : Mr.Krishna Ravindran For Respondents : Dr.T.Seenivasan, SGP

ORDER

The petitioner is the owner of the property situated at S.Nos.62/1, 62/2, 67, 68/1, 68/2, 69, 70 and 73 at Bodinayakkanur (North) Hilly Village, Bodinayakkanur Taluk, Theni District. He had purchased the property in 2011 with an intention to implement an Agro Forestry Project. The property, prior to the purchase, had been used for silk-cotton tree plantation. By the time the petitioner came to possess the property, the plants had more or less died. Instead of the silk-cotton tree plants, invasive species (lantana camara) have started growing over the land. Hence, the petitioner approached the District Collector, who is the Chairman of the Committee appointed under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act of 1955. The plea of the petitioner is that he wants to remove the invasive species and replace it with trees which would be useful to the society. This application was filed on 21.04.2017. Despite the lapse of three years, as the application was not considered, he moved a writ petition before the Permanent Bench of this Court at Madurai in W.P.(MD) No.8047 of 2020.

2. The District Collector passed an order on 05.02.2020, rejecting the proposal made by the petitioner. The rejection was made on the ground that, in case, the invasive species are removed, it might result in soil erosion and land slides affecting the areas which fall below the property belonging to the petitioner. Prior to passing of the order, the District Collector had received a report from the Tahsildar, as well as the District Forest Officer of Theni. The reports said to be stated that if the JCB and tractors are used, it will not cause any harm to the soil.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent. The first respondent dismissed the appeal. Hence, the writ petition.

4. I heard Mr.Krishna Ravindran for the petitioner and Dr.T.Seenivasan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. I am of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed for more than one reason. Insofar as the order passed by the first respondent is concerned, there is absolutely no reason accorded by the first respondent to reject the appeal. In fact, the petitioner had produced records from experts in the field of gradient analysis before the first respondent, as is clear, from his letter dated 27.02.2025. The impugned order does not make any reference to the same. It is oft repeated that reasons are the heartbeat of an order and without a reason, the order has to be considered as stillbo