1 2
Page of
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.420 OF 2024
Sri Amarjoy Reang.
Vs.
The State of Tripura and ors.
T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
Present:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. Datta, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. De, Add. G.A.
28.06.2024
Order
This present writ petition has been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the
nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders, direction/directions of like nature shall not
be issued whereby directing the Respondents for extension of tree registration
certificate.
(ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the
nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders, direction/ directions of like nature shall not
be issued whereby directing the Respondents for issuance of permission for
extraction of 207 nos. of trees.
(iii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the
nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders, direction/ directions of like nature shall not
be issued quashing the letter bearing No. F.32 (1)-1/ JT/ AR-39/AD-2013/55-59
dated 02.04.2024:
iv) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the
nature of certiorari and/or order/orders, direction/ directions of like nature shall not
be issued calling for the records pertaining to the instant writ petition from the
custody of the Respondents and make the Rules absolute after hearing the both
sides.
AND
Make the Rules absolute after hearing the Parties
AND
Pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble High Court may consider fit and
proper.”
2. Heard Mr. K. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the
State-respondents.
2 2
Page of
3. Mr. K. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that his client applied for obtaining permission for
extraction of 207 nos trees on 07.02.2020, but, no extraction permit
was obtained. In this regard, the petitioner has also submitted a
representation dated 27.03.2024, but, no effective order/permission
was made by the respondents in this regard.
4. It is seen from the record that the petitioner has
applied for permission way back in 2020 and in the impugned order
dated 02.04.2024, it is stated that the Tree Registration Certificate is
valid for 07(seven) years from the date of issue.
5. Accordingly, in view of the same, the impugned order
dated 02.04.2024 is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to
respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 is directed to consider the
case of the petitioner within a period of 1(one) month from the date
of receipt of the copy of this order in accordance with law by
considering the request made by the petitioner way back in
nd
07.02.2020. The petitioner is at liberty to personally meet the 2
respondent herein and appraise the facts as required.
6. With the above observation and direction, this present
writ petition stands disposed of. Stay if any stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any also stands closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR
SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2024.07.02
SINGHA
14:07:29 +05'30'