BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved On :       28.11.2022

Delivered On :       19.12.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

Miscellaneous Petition (MD) No. 1 of 2013 in

Writ Petition (MD) No. 20610 of 2013 —

M.J. Jeyapal      .. Petitioner

Versus

1. The Secretary to Government

Government of Tamil Nadu

Forest Department

Secretariat, Fort St. George     Chennai – 600 009

1. The Secretary to Government

Government of Tamil Nadu

Home Department

Secretariat, Fort St. George

Chennai – 600 009

3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest

Panagal Building, Saidapet     Chennai

4. The District Collector

Theni District

Theni

5. The Regional Conservator of Forest

Madurai Region

Race Course Road, Madurai

6. R. Venkatasamy

Wild Life Warden

Mehamalai Wild Life Forest Division     Theni

7. Dream View Coffee & Tea Estate Pvt Ltd.,

Represented by its Manager

Erasakkanayakanur (Hills)

Mehamalai Village

Uthamapalayam Taluk     Theni District        .. Respondents

MP (MD) No. 1 of 2013:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The

Constitution of India praying to direct the first respondent herein not to permit any person from cutting the trees in Megamalai Wild Life Sanctuary, Megamalai, Theni District pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

WP (MD) No. 20610 of 2013:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to conduct a fair investigation by appointing an independent agency namely the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for the illegalities/irregularities committed in the Megamalai Wild Life Sanctuary by the officials/third parties and also take necessary steps to protect the Reserved Forest of Megamalai Wild Life Sanctuary by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 31.10.2013.

MP (MD) No. 1 of 2013

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Sri Balaji
For Respondents	:	Mr. R. Baskaran, Additional Advocate General  assisted by Mr. N.GA. Nataraj  Government Advocate for R1 to 5

Mr. V. Rajasekaran for R6

Mr. D. Balamurugapandi for R7

ORDER

R. MAHADEVAN, J

The petitioner has filed this writ petition as a pro-bono publico praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to conduct a fair investigation by appointing an independent agency namely the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for unearthing the illegalities/irregularities committed in the Megamalai Wild Life Sanctuary by the officials in collusion with third parties and also take necessary steps to protect the Reserved Forest of Megamalai Wild Life Sanctuary by considering his representation dated 31.10.2013.

2. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed the instant Miscellaneous Petition (MD) No. 1 of 2013 seeking to direct the first respondent not to permit any person from cutting the trees in Megamalai Wild

Life Sanctuary, Megamalai, Theni District pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

Brief averments in the writ petition

3.(i) The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has submitted that Megamalai forest area hosts a variety of birds, mammals, reptiles and butterflies besides it houses various wild animals such as migratory elephants, tiger, leopard etc., The rare Great Indian Hornbills, which is one of the largest hornbills, are sighted in Megamalai Forest.  However, now, these hornbills could be sighted very rarely due to destruction and/or reduction of the forest area.  It is his contention that Megamalai Forest/ Sanctuary is ecologically sensitive area and its bio-diversity shall be protected in the interest of public and larger global interest.

• The petitioner further submits that Megamalai hill is notified as one of the hill areas under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 however, with increase in population and urbanisation, vast stretches of the forest area has been degraded or converted into unicrop areas, thereby causing severe damage to the environment. Further, due to the act of the officials of the forest, in connivance with real estate businessmen and Tea estate owners, Megamalai Forest area is slowly losing its originality especially when spontaneous trees are cut and carried away for personal gain.
• According to the petitioner, one Mr. Rajkumar, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Forest Protection and Vigilance, Madurai submitted his report to the seventh respondent stating that he has inspected the forest area along with his team in the seventh respondent estate on 15.03.2012 and found that the seventh respondent had cut spontaneous trees and wooden logs were found neatly segregated in the forest land for transportation. He has further stated that on 08.03.2012 and 09.03.2012, 96 class of trees cut by the seventh respondent were transported to Venniyar Estate.  It was also revealed that the seventh respondent has obtained permission only to cut the Mulmurungai Trees from the District Forest Officer, Theni but on the basis of such an order, he had cut affluent trees along with Mulmurungai Trees.   The Assistant Conservator of Forest has also cautioned that there is every possibility that adjacent estate owners will also follow the same style in the guise of cutting trees in their estate.  Thereafter, there were exchange of letters between the sixth respondent and various forest officials.  Ultimately, the sixth respondent sent a report to the fifth respondent dated 18.01.2013 requesting to drop further action against the seventh respondent.  However, the fifth respondent specifically directed the sixth respondent to take action against the seventh respondent.  Thus, there is acute collision between the seventh respondent and various forest officials and it had gone unnoticed all these years. The petitioner also enclosed various communications exchanged between the forest officials and submitted that no concrete action has been taken as against the seventh respondent and therefore, he has filed the writ petition.

4.(i) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

Honourable Supreme Court of India in the order passed in WP (C) No. 202 of

1995 has issued various directions to protect the forest wealth, but those directions have not been complied with in this case.  The learned counsel submits that inspite of a specific report given to the sixth respondent to take action against the seventh respondent, the sixth respondent only recommended to drop all further proceedings against the seventh respondent, who had cut and carried away spontaneous trees without any permission.  In fact, the sixth respondent, in his proceedings dated 03.10.2013 had permitted the seventh respondent to take Hitachi Machines for cutting trees, especially when they are specifically prohibited inside the Hill area.  Due to the act of the sixth respondent, the Megamalai Forest area had lost its originality and it resulted in acute de-forestation.  The sixth respondent, in connivance with the seventh respondent, has not taken any action against the seventh respondent so far. Therefore, the petitioner has arrayed the sixth respondent in his personal capacity in this writ petition.  The petitioner also submitted various applications under the Right to Information Act to get information from the office of the fifth respondent and he also appeared for an enquiry on 14.11.2013 at 12.00 pm in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Varusanadu Soil Preservation Division, Theni and his statement was recorded. The petitioner also produced photographs and other documentary evidence to show that spontaneous trees have been cut and transported by the seventh respondent based on an order issued in their favour to cut only Mulmurungai trees. In any event, inspite of representations made by the petitioner, participating in the enquiry and producing documentary evidence to show that the seventh respondent had contravened the Act and Rules in the matter of cutting and transporting spontaneously grown trees, the official respondents did not take any action so far.  In fact, one Mr. Murugesan submitted a complaint dated 09.02.2013 to the first respondent, complaining the act of cutting of forest trees by several persons and it was forwarded to the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent, without conducting any enquiry, has simply submitted a report stating that there is no violation of law and procedures. Thus, it is submitted that various officers of the forest department are hand in glove with the seventh respondent and similar persons and therefore, the counsel for the petitioner insisted for issuing a direction to the first respondent to appoint an independent investigation agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation to unearth larger conspiracy in the present case.

• The learned counsel for the petitioner also further submitted that

Meghamalai Forest Division comprising of Meghamalai, Varsanadu, Kadamnoor, Sinamnoor East, Cumbum East and Gudalur Forest Range had been declared as Meghamalai Wild life sanctuary.  Out of the total 806.86 square kilometer of forest cover, about 400.77 kilometer of forest cover had already been removed due to unabated, unchecked, rampant and illegal felling of trees by poachers and anti-social elements with active aid and assistance of the forest officials.  It is stated that timbers worth several crores are regularly smuggled from Meghamalai by forest smugglers and private tea estate owners with the active aid and connivance of the officials of the Forest Department. The fast depleting forest cover poses a grave threat to the wildlife habitat besides it will have a dangerous repercussions for the public in general. According to the learned counsel, Meghamalai forest area is home to about 34 species of amphibians including 21 endemic, 72 species of reptiles including 23 endemic, 211 species of birds and 62 species of mammals including 14 endemic. Therefore, it is an important area for conservation of rare and endemic.  However, due to fast depletion of forest cover, the landscape which forms catchment areas for rivers like Vaigai, Vaippar, Suruliar,

Shanmuganandi etc., does not receive rainfall during the last ten years.

• Listing out the various illegalities alleged to have been committed by the seventh respondent in felling spontaneous trees unauthorisedly and the inaction on the part of the official respondents to take action thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that fourth respondent must be restrained from giving any sanction for felling trees in the Meghamalai Wild Life Sanctuary. The learned counsel for the petitioner also seeks to issue appropriate direction to the respondents 1 to 6 to file bi-monthly report with regard to the status of criminal proceedings against the seventh respondent and the forest officials, including the status of disciplinary proceedings pending against the sixth respondent.  The learned counsel also seeks to direct the fourth respondent to submit a bi monthly status report with regard to the activities in the Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary and the steps taken to prevent afforestation of the forest interalia to improve the green cover.  In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the interim orders/final orders dated 12.12.1996, 15.01.1998 and 26.09.2005 passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and others, WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 and reported in (1997) 2 Supreme Court Cases 267,  (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 59 and AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4256 respectively.  In the aforesaid cases, it was specifically observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that damage to environment is a damage to the country’s asset as a whole.  Ecology knows no boundaries.  It can have impact on the climate.  The parameters for valuation of the damage have to be evolved also keeping in view the likely impact of activities in future generation.  Ultimately, while passing final orders in the aforesaid case, the Honourable Supreme Court made the following

observations as follows:-

“91. We may also briefly refer to public trust doctrine and its applicability to the matters under consideration. The Public Trust Doctrine looks beyond the need of the present generation and also suggests that certain resources are invested with a special nature.  It would be instructive to make a note of a story given in by Timothy Patrick Brady in Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, Spring 1990 under the title “But most of it belongs to those yet to be born”. The story relates to digging of well at the time of drought.

When a Frenchman told Villagers of a prudent African solution of digging well, many Villagers agreed but others argued that it will bring people from other villagers and they would bring their cattle and that would increase the pressure on the already precious water.  The Frenchman told the Villagers that why not explain to them that the well is only for your own village and they can dig their own.  It was then said that “water is not only ours, but is gift of nature from God and must be shared”.  Ultimately, they concluded that it was wiser not to dig the well at all. The moral of the story is that we are trustees of natural resources which belong to all including future generation as well.  The public trust doctrine has to be used to protect the right of this as also future generation.

92. Having regard to the above, amounts under CAMPA have to be used for regeneration of eco-system and the same cannot be handed over to any State Government on the premises that ecology is not property of any State, but belongs to all being a gift of nature for entire nation. The object of the FC Act and the EP Act is protection of environments. These Acts do not deal with any propriety rights of anyone.
93. As already stated the question as to what amount of NPV is required to be paid to achieve these object is a matter to be gone into by the experts. However, the amounts shall have to be updated from time to time after every three years.  For grant of approval under Section 2 of the FC Act, besides payment of NPV as being presently calculated by MOEF, the user agencies shall have to give undertakings to pay the remaining amount, if any, pending finalization of determination by the experts.”

5.(i) The fifth respondent in the writ petition has filed a counter affidavit stating that on receipt of notice in this writ petition, the fifth respondent has issued orders on 05.11.2013 itself to the Divisional Forest

Officer, Theni to enquire into the matter by causing a field inspection and to file a report.  Accordingly, an inspection was conducted which reveals that prima facie trees have been cut illegally.  In this regard, action has been taken against the forest officials by passing orders of suspension.  As far as the seventh respondent herein is concerned, a part of the patta land of the seventh respondent has been notified as private forest under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 and the entire area has been notified as hill area under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955.  Thus, the area of the seventh respondent is under the regulation of the aforesaid Acts and the Rules framed thereunder. As per the Act, a Committee has been constituted in which the sixth respondent is one of the members.  As per the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Rules, 1955, before granting permission for felling of trees, a Forest Officer not below the rank of Forest Range Officer has to inspect the area concerned and make a report.  In the present case, the then Forest Ranger, Hill Areas Preservation of Trees Range, Megamalai had sent a report to the District Forest Officer, Theni stating that 114 trees of spontaneous growth have been cut by the seventh respondent without any permission during March 2012.  The Assistant Conservator of Forest, Forest Protection and Vigilance, Madurai also conducted an inspection and found 96 trees of spontaneous growth have been cut without any permission and reported it to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Chennai with a copy marked to the fifth respondent.  The fifth respondent, in turn, sent a communication dated 16.03.2012, 27.04.2012 and 12.06.2012 to the sixth respondent to take immediate action on the felling of trees illegally by the seventh respondent.

(ii) It is further stated in the counter affidavit of the fifth respondent in the writ petition that the seventh respondent in the writ petition did not submit any application prior to cutting of trees. The seventh respondent is a violator of the Act and Rules and it came to light after filing of the present writ petition.  In the typed set of papers filed along with the writ petition, an application dated 18.04.2012 said to have been submitted by the seventh respondent has been enclosed.  The said application has been made to ths District Committee, Theni seeking permission for conversion of plantation by felling the matured plants and trees and also permission to use JCB to dig pits and uproot the coffee plantation. The Committee also granted permission on 30.08.2013 to retain 293 silver oak trees and for felling and uprooting 199

Murugai, 21 Neem, 1 Naval and windfallen miscellaneous trees 69 along with 31875 coffee plants and 14600 cardamom plants.  However, by using this permission, the entire area had been cleared and more number of trees were illegally cut by the seventh respondent.  In effect, there were about 2700 trees of various species of spontaneous growth have been felled by the seventh respondent and the exact number of trees is yet to be received by the fifth respondent.  In the counter affidavit, the fifth respondent has also listed out the various enquiries conducted by the fifth respondent as against the seventh respondent.  Reference was also made to a letter dated 03.01.2014 sent by the fifth respondent ordering to stop all the felling and transportation of trees in the Estate and the permission sought for from the District Collector to cancel all the earlier permissions granted for felling of trees.  In effect, it is submitted that already the third and fifth respondents have initiated action against the erring officials and they are facing departmental proceedings.  The sixth respondent was also instructed to cancel the permission to cut trees, if any, given to the seventh respondent to ensure no felling of trees takes place in violation of provisions of law.  It was also stated that if the seventh respondent was found felling of any trees or any other offence in the forest/sanctuary areas, appropriate action will be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1982; Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and on the basis of the orders passed by the Honourable Supreme in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995. It is also stated that as action was already initiated by the official respondents, there is no necessity to issue direction to the first respondent to appoint an independent investigation agency like CBI to conduct an enquiry and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6.(i) The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 produced a copy of the Status report filed by the sixth respondent in the writ petition on 03.12.2018 and submitted that an enquiry has been conducted with respect to illicit cutting of trees by the 7th respondent in this writ petition namely Dream View Coffee & Tea Estate Pvt Ltd., in Megamalai Forest Area and disciplinary action has been taken as against (i)

Mr. K. Venkatasamy, Wildlife Garden (ii) Mr. D. Suresh Kumar, Forest Range

Officer (iii) Mr. S. Vasiappan, Forester (iv) Mr. K. Mayandi, Forest Guard and (v) Mr. Sabarinathan, Forest Watcher and they were suspended from service by invoking Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.  After receipt of explanation from the delinquents, an enquiry officer was appointed who, after concluding enquiry, submitted his final report.  The report of the enquiry officer was served on the individuals and their further explanation was also received.  The further explanation so received was sent to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Chennai for passing final orders on 08.12.2017.  It is also stated that the delinquent officials were ordered to be transferred to other Divisions and Ranges.   The learned Special Government Pleader also produced a typed set of papers containing the charge memorandum issued to the aforesaid officials during March 2014 and the report of the enquiry officer dated 21.05.2014 to submit that departmental proceedings have been initiated against the officials for their dereliction of duty in not informing the higher officials regarding the unauthorised cutting of forest trees by the seventh respondent herein.

(ii) Above all, the learned Additional Advocate General also produced a copy of the communication dated 28.12.2018 issued by the District Collector, Theni, according sanction for criminal prosecution of the seventh respondent herein for having cut 114 trees in private patta lands in Erasakkanayanur Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk without obtaining prior permission from the District Committee.  Such a sanction for prosecution was accorded under the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of

Trees) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1955).  The learned Special Government Pleader therefore submits that appropriate action has already been taken against the seventh respondent as well as the officials of the Forest Department.  Therefore, he would submit that the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition as well as the miscellaneous petition need not be granted especially when the official respondents have already initiated appropriate action in the case and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as well as the miscellaneous petition.

7. The contesting seventh respondent in the writ petition namely Dream View Tea and Coffee Estate Private Limited has filed a counter affidavit contending that the seventh respondent is the owner of the land in Survey Nos. 97/1, 97/2, 97/3 and 97/4 bearing Patta No.182 where they are doing Tea and Coffee vending business. It is further submitted that the seventh respondent in the writ petition has filed an application seeking permission to remove the saplings, trees, which has grown in their lands and decided to plant Tea Leafs and Coffee Leaves. Such an application has been filed along with a Certificate issued by “Upsai Tea Research Foundation” to the sixth respondent.  On the basis of the said application, on 14.08.2013, a meeting presided by the Personal Assistant (General) to District Collector was convened.  In the meeting, it was decided to grant permission to the sixth respondent herein and accordingly, by an order dated 30.08.2013, permission was accorded to cut and carry the trees subject to certain conditions.  Based on the said order, the sixth respondent passed an order directing to deposit a sum of Rs.39,000/- towards security deposit and accordingly, it was deposited by the seventh respondent.  Thus, it is submitted that the seventh respondent has cut the trees based on the permission given by the concerned officials of the Forest.  However, on 27.12.2013, a false case has been foisted against the Manager of the seventh respondent herein invoking Section 3 (1) (a) and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955.  According to the seventh respondent, the present writ petition has not been filed in any public interest by the petitioner.  On the other hand, the writ petitioner is a local politician and he has filed the present writ petition only to threaten the estate owners like the seventh respondent herein to indirectly make them pay bribe demanded by him.  It is the habit of the writ petitioner to file Public Interest Litigation if the estate owner refuses or fails to adhere to his demand and the present writ petition is also in that direction.  In any event, already the seventh respondent is facing prosecution at the behest of the officials of the forest department and therefore, the prayer sought for by the petitioner to direct the CBI to take up investigation in connection with the cutting and carrying away of trees is unwarranted.  The seventh respondent therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. We have heard the counsel for both sides and perused the

materials placed on record.

9. At the outset, pertinently, it is to be noted that under Article 48-A of the Constitution, introduced through the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1976, the State shall endeavour to protect the forests in the country. Concerns related to the environment were introduced for the first time in the Constitution by introducing Articles 48-A (Part – IV) and 51A(g) (Part – IV A) in consonance with the international developments. State has an obligation to direct its policies towards the protection of ecology and biodiversity and it is also the Constitutional duty of the citizens to protect the same. The State government, under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 notifies

‘reserved forest’. Once a land is notified as ‘reserve forests’, certain activities are prohibited and the Act imposes strict penalties for any contravention of the prohibitions. Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 prohibits the following activities:

“21. Any person who

• makes any fresh clearing prohibited by section 7 ; or
• sets fire to a reserved forest, or kindles, or leaves burning, any fire in such manner as to endanger the same; or who, in a reserved forest,
• kindles, keeps or carries any fire except at such season and in such manner as the District Forest Officer may from time to time notify:
• trespasses or pastures cattle, or permits cattle to trespass;
• fells, girdles, marks, lops, tops, uproots or burns any tree, or strips off the bark or leaves from, or otherwise damages, the same.
• quarries stone, burns lime or charcoal, or collects, subject to any manufacturing process, or removes any forest produce;
• clears, cultivates or breaks up any land for cultivation or any other purpose; or
• In contravention of any rules made by the Government hunts, shoots, fishes, poisons water or sets traps or snares; (i) Damages, alters or removes any wall, ditch, embankment, fence hedge or railing;

shall, in addition to such compensation for damage done to the forest as the convicting court may direct to be paid, be punished:-

• in any case where any of the acts aforesaid relates to any scheduled timber, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to twenty-thousand rupees; Provided that,
  • for a first offence, the term of such imprisonment shall not be less than two years and such fine shall not be less than Seven thousand and Five Hundred rupees:
  • for a second or subsequent offence the term of such imprisonment shall not be less than three years and such fine

shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees;

• in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which may extent to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”

10. Thus, felling of trees in a reserve forest without prior permission from the competent authority is an illegal act. It not only depletes the forest cover, but also disturbs the ecological balance in and around the area. It also leads to soil erosion and alters the micro-climate of the area, thereby affecting the wildlife habitat. In other words, such illegal activities not only impact the environment, but also pose a threat to biodiversity and the safety of the habitant in and around the forest area.
11. In the present case, on 15.03.2012, a report was submitted by the then Assistant Conservator of Forest, Forest Protection and Vigilance, Madurai stating that the seventh respondent had cut spontaneous trees and wooden logs. It was specifically stated in the report that 96 class of trees were cut by the seventh respondent and those trees were transported to Venniyar Estate.  On the other hand, the sixth respondent sent a report to the fifth respondent to drop further action against the seventh respondent.  This had prompted the petitioner to file this writ petition complaining inaction on the part of the official respondents in taking action against the seventh respondent.
12. It is also seen from the records that on 05.11.2013, the fifth respondent directed the Divisional Forest Officer, Theni to cause a field inspection for which a special party was formed. The team constituted by the fifth respondent conducted an inspection and it prima facie reveals that valuable trees have been cut illegally.  It is stated that for dereliction of duty, departmental proceedings have been initiated against the delinquent officials. In the typed set of papers, the charge memorandum issued to the officials of the Forest Department on 20.03.2014 was enclosed.  A transfer order dated 17.01.2014 passed against the sixth respondent was also enclosed to show that he was transferred and posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Sivagangai.  It is also seen from the records that on 28.04.2014, the sixth respondent was suspended from service vide G.O. Ms. No.41, Environment and Forest Department dated 28.04.2014 for the delinquency committed when he was working as Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Sivagangai.  The order of suspension passed against the sixth respondent is with reference to the delinquency committed by him after his transfer as  Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Sivagangai. However, a report of the Enquiry Officer dated 08.12.2017 was produced to show that enquiry was conducted as against the sixth respondent herein and other officials of the Forest Department and the report was sent to the Conservator of Forest, Madurai Region, Madurai.  These reports were produced to show that already departmental action has been initiated against the officials of the forest department.  However, it is not known as to whether final order has been passed in the departmental proceedings initiated against the sixth respondent and others in connection with the lapses in not preventing the cutting of trees in Meghamalai Forest area.  It is needless to mention that there is inaction on the part of the respondents in swiftly taking departmental action as against the officials concerned and concluding it within a reasonable time.  The fact that trees have been fell unauthorisedly has been reported way back in the year 2012, however, even after lapse of ten years, there is little or no progress in the departmental enquiry conducted against the erring officials.
13. In so far as the seventh respondent is concerned, for having unauthorisedly cut 114 native trees, a case in Crime No. 3 of 2012 was registered against him for the offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (a) and Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955. Subsequently, approval was sought to prosecute the seventh respondent before the jurisdictional Criminal Court and accordingly, approval was accorded by the District Collector, Theni in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.12007/2012/A3 dated 28.12.2018. Based on the order of approval, a criminal case was filed as against the seventh respondent in STC No. 9 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthamapalayam and it is pending. Even though the seventh respondent had allegedly indulged in cutting of trees and it was reported by the then Assistant Conservator of Forest, Forest Protection and Vigilance, Madurai by way of a report dated 15.03.2012, the seventh respondent was prosecuted only recently by filing a criminal complaint in S.T.C. No. No. 9 of 2021.
14. The above facts categorically indicate that there are lapses on the part of the officials of the Forest Department in not preventing the cutting of trees in Meghamalai Forest Area by the seventh respondent. The various inspections conducted by the officials of the Forest Department would show that valuable and spontaneous trees have been cut and carried away in the Meghamalai Forest area unauthorisedly.  Therefore, we find that the various averments made by the petitioner in this writ petition are not without any substance.  It is needless to mention that frequent felling of trees would have an adverse impact in the ecology, reduce the forest cover besides it would pose a grave threat to the bio-diversity.
15. In the light of the above, we direct the official respondents to file status reports indicating the stage of the departmental proceedings initiated against the delinquent officials of the forest department, more particularly the sixth respondent, in connection with the lapses in not preventing the cutting of trees in the Meghamalai Forest Area as also the status of criminal proceedings against the seventh respondent in STC No. 9 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthamapalayam, within a period of six weeks. In the meantime, the official respondents are directed not to permit any person from cutting the trees in Megamalai Wild Life Sanctuary, Megamalai, Theni

District.

Post the writ petition for reporting compliance after six weeks for passing further orders.

(R.M.D., J)       (J.S.N.P. J)

.12.2022 rsh

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes / No To

1. The Secretary to Government

Government of Tamil Nadu

Forest Department

Secretariat, Fort St. George     Chennai – 600 009

2. The Secretary to Government

Government of Tamil Nadu

Home Department

Secretariat, Fort St. George

Chennai – 600 009

3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest

Panagal Building, Saidapet

Chennai

4. The District Collector Theni District, Theni
5. The Regional Conservator of Forest

Madurai Region

Race Course Road, Madurai

R.MAHADEVAN, J.                   and  J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD  , J.

rsh/ps

MP (MD) No. 1 of 2013 in WP (MD) No. 20610 of 2013

1. 19.12.2022