BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 06.07.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

W.P.(MD)No.14362 of 2022

R.S. Dhanasekaran

.. Petitioner

Vs

1. The District Forest Officer

O/o. the District Forest Officer,

Kodaikanal, Dindigul District

2. The Forest Ranger

Perumpallam Range, Pannaikadu,

Oothu, Kodaikanal Taluk

Dindigul District

..Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to issue Timber

transit Permits to remove the 13 Jack Tree Wooden logs stored in

Petitioners property situated in S.No.585/1, Pannaikadu Village ,

Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul as per the Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Timber

Transit Rules 1968 within the time period stipulated by this Honble

Court

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

For Petitioner

: Mr.M.Mahaboob Fazil

for Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy

For Respondents

: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar

Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to

issue timber transit permit to remove the 13 jack fruit tree wooden logs s

stored in petitioner's property situated in S.No.585/1, Pannaikadu Village

Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul as per the Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Timber

Transit Rules 1968 .

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has sent a

representation dated 24.06.2022 to the District Forest Officer,

Kodaikanal seeking permission to remove the 13 jack fruits tree timber

which were stored in the petitioner's property. Since no action has been

taken the present petition has been filed.

3. The petitioner submits that he is residing in the property in

S.No.585/1, Panniakadu Village, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District. In

his farm house there are several varieties of trees planted. The petitioner

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

had planted 120 jack fruits in his farm and several of the trees are in

dilapidated stage and there was serious risk to the life of the persons

working in the farm and other wild animals. He had cut down and trees

and stored the timbers in his farm. Thereafter the petitioner has filed a

Writ Petition in WP(MD) No.14096 of 2017 before this Court seeking

for a similar prayer. At that time he as adviced to compound the offence

for cutting down the trees. Thereafter he approached the District Hill

Areas Preservation of Trees Commitee to permit him remove the tree

wooden logs for which he was asked to pay Rs.500/-. Strangely it has

been recorded as fine of Rs.500/- under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu

Timber Transit Rules 1968 . The learned counsel would further submit

that as per G.O.Ms.No.165, Environment and Forests (FR13) dated

30.11.2009 Jack fruits trees in the private land have been omitted from

the Rule 2 Clause(3) of the Act of the Tamil Nadu transit rules, thereby

he has no restrictions to remove the jack fruit tree timber.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent would submit that the petitioner had admitted his guilt and

also paid a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 7 of the Hill areas Prevention

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Act. As per Section 3(ii ) of the Act if the petitioner intends to remove

any trees permission can be granted if appropirate application is made to

the commitee constituted under Section 2(a) of the Act and after

obtaining permission from the authorities, he can remove the timbers.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

perused the materials available on record.

6. It is seen that the petitioner has made representation only to the

District Forest Officer and not before the Committe constituted under

Section 2(a) of the Act. In view of the same, the petitioner is directed to

sent a fresh representation to the newly constituted commite