Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 56 (ORI)

Managobinda Sahoo v. State of Orissa

2002-01-29

B.PANIGRAHI, M.PAPANNA

body2002
JUDGMENT B. PANIGRAHI, J. — The petitioners, who are the villagers of Kantiokateni have filed this case for declaring letter No. 6829 dated 8.12.2000 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhenka¬nal to be illegal and, consequently, no action shall be taken thereon. In this case ward members of Ward Nos. 1,4,5,6,8,9,10 and 11 have filed an application to be included as Intervenors and their application was directed to be considered at the time of hearing of the case. The opposite parties have filed their counter affidavit in this case, inter alia, denying the averments of the writ application. 2. The writ petitioners have claimed to have constituted Vana Surakhya Samiti (in short “V.S.S.”) in consultation with the opposite party No. 2. After formation of such V.S.S., it is stated that there was a memorandum of understanding between the peti¬tioner and the opposite parties. The V.S.S. was constituted with a view to protect, safeguard and conserve the forest growth and the villagers shall only be permitted to use certain forest produce for their domestic use. In the said scheme it was further indicated that an Executive Committee shall be constituted con¬sisting of 10 to 15 members which shall be presided over by the Naib Sarpanch of the Panchayat and the Forest Officials will also be taken as members. The tenure of the Executive Committee shall be for a period of two years from the date it assumes charge. It has also been stated in the Resolution that if the work of the Executive Committee is found to be detrimental against protec¬tion/generation or proper management of the forest, the D.F.O. shall record his finding and he may dissolve the Executive Com¬mittee. In the event of such desolution a meeting shall be con¬vened to constitute a new committee. Since a notice for dissolv¬ing the committee was issued by the D.F.O. under Annexure-1, the petitioner, therefore, being aggrieved by such action have filed this writ application. 3. Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued vehemently that in this case the D.F.O. has not given any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing such order of dissolution. It has been further stated that there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioners have acted in detrimental of protecting the forest growth so that the D.F.O. could be in a position to dissolve the committee. It has been further stated that there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioners have acted in detrimental of protecting the forest growth so that the D.F.O. could be in a position to dissolve the committee. In absence of those materials the order of dissolution under Annex¬ure-1 should be declared to be illegal. 4. There is a provision that in case the order of dissolu¬tion is passed by the D.F.O., then appeal shall lie to the Sub-Collector. It is contended that although an appeal has been filed, no order has been passed by the appellate authority. Therefore, the petitioners were compelled to file this case. 5. Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate has contended that while constituting the Executive Committee of V.S.S. the entire body of the villagers were not involved which comprises 11 wards and therefore, they raised several objections before the D.F.O. Therefore, the matter was enquired into and accordingly the D.F.O. did not find any other alternative than to dissolve the committee. It has been further contended that notice for reconstituting the committee was issued after expiry of the term of the previous committee. 6. Mr. S.P.Misra, learned counsel for the Intervenors has also submitted that all the Ward members of the Panchayat were not involved while constituting the V.S.S. Therefore, since their interests were not properly safeguarded, which offends the purpose and intendment of the scheme, the ward members raised voice of protest against such constitution by ventilating their grievance to the D.F.O. Accordingly, the D.F.O. had issued such notice for constituting a fresh committee. 7. From the submissions, it appears that Panchayat election is on, which shall be concluded within a month. The new office bearers shall be elected. The term of last committee of V.S.S. has already elapsed since December, 2001. No selection of the Executive Committee members has taken place after expiry of their term. As per the Memo of understanding, it appears that V.S.S. was formed representing the writ petitioner. Whatsoever may be the case, their term has already expired and the management of the V.S.S. had vested in the Forest Department as per the Resolu¬tion. 8. In this background, we therefore, direct the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhenkanal to convene a meeting after completion of Panchayat election, after giving due notice of 20 clear days before the meeting to all the ward members including the villag¬ers at large. 9. 8. In this background, we therefore, direct the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhenkanal to convene a meeting after completion of Panchayat election, after giving due notice of 20 clear days before the meeting to all the ward members including the villag¬ers at large. 9. On the date of meeting, we also desire that the local Sub-Collector shall remain present. There shall be a fresh constitution of V.S.S. committee and also selection of office bearers. To ward off any law and order situation, the local police also shall assist in convening the meeting. 10. With the aforesaid observation the application for intervention and writ petition are disposed of. M. PAPANNA, J. I agree. Petition disposed of.