JUDGEMENT R. S. Pathak, C. J.:- Section 216-A of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968, as amended by the Himachal Pra­desh Act No. 19 of 1968, provides that no person shall fell any tree within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corpora­tion, Simla except under a permit obtained from the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner. Sub-section (2) reads: "(2) No application for grant of per­mit for felling of tree shall be entertain­ed unless it is accompanied by a fee of Rs. 5 which amount shall be utilized for fresh plantation." 2. The petitioner applied to the Exe­cutive Officer of the Municipal Corpora­tion, Simla for a permit to enable him to fell ten trees so that he could con­struct a godown. The application was accompanied by a fee of Rs. 5. The Exe­cutive Officer informed the petitioner that a total fee of Rs. 50 was payable with the application and therefore he should pay the balance of Rs. 45. Ag­grieved by this demand, the petitioner now applies under Art. 226 of the Constitution for relief. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that on a proper construction of S. 216-A (2) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act the Executive Officer is entitled to demand a fee of Rs. 5 only with the ap­plication and not any greater sum. It is contended that the statute requires a fee of Rs. 5 per application irrespective of the number of trees covered by the application, and not a fee of Rs. 5 for each tree sought to be felled. We have considered the contention, and in our opinion it has no force. A perusal of S. 216-A clearly indicates that what is contemplated is permission in relation to each individual tree. The Municipal Cor­poration has to consider whether one or some or all of the trees should be allow­ed to be felled. It must apply its mind to the particular location of each indi­vidual tree and the consequences following from its being felled, and either grant or refuse permission in respect of each individual tree. It is not contem­plated that an application for permission to fell a number of trees should be dis­posed of by a cumulative consideration of all the trees. It must apply its mind to the particular location of each indi­vidual tree and the consequences following from its being felled, and either grant or refuse permission in respect of each individual tree. It is not contem­plated that an application for permission to fell a number of trees should be dis­posed of by a cumulative consideration of all the trees. It is also significant that S. 216-A (2) implies a statutory obliga­tion on the Municipal Corporation to plant a fresh tree for each tree allowed to be felled, and to enable it to do that a fee of Rs. 5 has been imposed. It can­not be supposed that if an application for a permit to fell 500 trees is made a fee of Rs. 5 will suffice for the purpose of freshly planting 500 trees to replace those felled. Further indication is pro­vided in S. 216-A (3), which declares that the cutting or destroying of each single tree in breach of the provisions of S. 216-A shall be regarded as a distinct and separate offence. Upon the aforesaid considerations, we are of opinion that the fee of Rs. 5 must be regarded as an ap­plication-fee in respect of each indivi­dual tree. It may be observed that by way of convenience one application may be entertained for the felling of more than one tree, but in law that application will be considered as consisting of as many applications as the number of trees sought to be felled. Our attention has been drawn to R. 5 of the Himachal Pra­desh Municipal (Prevention of Soil Ero­sion and Hill Side Safety) Rules, 1975, which requires that an application for permission "for felling of tree" shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 5. The rule must be construed in line with the inten­tion of S. 216-A (2), and so construed it must mean that an application for per­mission for felling each tree shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 5. 4. We hold that the writ petition has no force. It is rejected. Petition dismissed