Judgment : 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 01.02.2012 which is impugned at Annexure-E to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for issue of mandamus to direct the second respondent to issue permission to cut all the trees which are enumerated and numbered for cutting as per the list at Annexure-D to the petition. 2. The petitioner claims to be owner of the Coffee Estate in survey No.56/3 of Kirudale Village, Suntikoppa Nad, Somvarapet Taluk, Kodagu District. The said coffee estate consists of grown trees which the petitioner now desires to cut and remove. In that regard, the petitioner is stated to have made a representation for permission to fell the trees. At an earlier instance, since the ownership of the trees was in issue, the parties are stated to have been before this Court in several writ petitions, reference to which is made in the order dated 18.01.2010 at Annexure-B to the petition. Since a direction had been issued by this Court to consider the rights of the parties with regard to ownership of the trees, the Deputy Commissioner is stated to have passed an order dated 18.01.2010. The petitioner claims that the right relating to the ownership of the trees in respect of the petitioner was also a part of the consideration in the said order. The correctness of this aspect of the matter, in any event, cannot be disputed inasmuch as the impugned communication dated 01.02.2012 (Annexure-E) itself refers to the determination said to have been made by the Deputy Commissioner. In that circumstance, when the ownership had been decided, the only issue for consideration was the age of trees. 3. From the impugned endorsement, it is seen that the application filed by the petitioner is yet to be considered and reasons indicated for keeping the same pending is that a circular dated 08.12.2006 which has been issued indicating guidelines for the determination of age of the trees had been withdrawn on 05.06.2007 and as such since there are no further guidelines issued, the petitioner's case could not be considered at that juncture. 4. The respondents in their objection statement have also referred to this aspect of the matter and have contended that the decision on the application filed by the petitioner has not yet been taken. 4. The respondents in their objection statement have also referred to this aspect of the matter and have contended that the decision on the application filed by the petitioner has not yet been taken. It has been indicated at this juncture that the permission could be granted subject to the petitioner accepting 90% of the net value after transporting the timber to the Government depot. 5. Since the ownership of the trees has already been decided as seen from the impugned communication itself, the only question at this juncture is to decide the age of the trees. Since admittedly through the impugned communication, the respondents indicate that a circular dated 08.12.2006 which was issued in that regard had been withdrawn on 05.06.2007, the application in any event cannot be kept in suspended animation but would have to be considered in accordance with the existing procedure for considering the age of the trees taking note of the fact that the petitioner had made the application as far back as in the year 2003. Hence, the manner in which the impugned communication has been issued indicating uncertainty, the same cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioners seeking permission to fell the trees keeping in view the existing law and also the earlier orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner which has already been taken note of the respondents and dispose of the application as expeditious as possible, but not later than six weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is made available to the respondents. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.