ORDER : S. Pujahari, J. 1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner, in this writ petition, challenges the inaction of the opposite parties, more particularly, opposite party No. 1-Divisional Forest Officer, Khariar Forest Division in not issuing the timber transit permit for removal of exempted Eucalyptus trees grown by him in his own land to outside the State, to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law with a prayer to direct the opposite party No. 1 to permit him for removal of trees planted by him in his Stridhan land for which he has already applied for vide Annexure-2. 2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he had grown Eucalyptus and other species in his rayat land. Out of those trees, he wanted to remove the Eucalyptus trees outside the State from the said plots earlier and made application vide Annexure-4 series on 7.5.2007 which was allowed by the then authority vide his endorsement dated 7.9.2007. Subsequently, the petitioner wanted to remove 1000 cubic meter of Eucalyptus and other exempted species beyond the border of the State of Odisha and he applied in Form-III-A for issuance of transit permit. As his application was intact, he is entitled to transit permit from the opposite party No. 1 without any enquiry. But the opposite party No. 1 requested the Tahasildar, Nuapada (opposite party No. 2) for enquiry on the same and sitting over the matter. Such action of the opposite party No. 1 directing the enquiry and not issuing the transit permit awaiting the same is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law. As such, a prayer has been made by the petitioner to direct the opposite party No. 1 to issue necessary permit in pursuance of his application in Form-III-A. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party No. 1 controverting the submission that no enquiry is required for issuance of such permit and since in this case the Tahasildar, Nuapada has been requested vide Office Letter No. 1996, dated 20.4.2013 of the opposite party No. 1 with regard to genuineness of the application and Kissam of the plots with reference to the records of the petitioner for taking further action and the said report has not since been received; the application in question is yet to be disposed of. So also it has been mentioned that since in this case Eucalyptus is grown in jungle kissam land as per the ROR furnished and no ownership of the exempted species has been issued in favour of the petitioner, enquiry was thought necessary and in the absence of the same, the same cannot be issued. The opposite party No. 1 has also taken a stand that since the trees are standing in the forest land even if recorded in the name of the petitioner, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is applicable to the present fact and, as such, even if the petitioner has furnished the certificate under Form-III-A, the same is not entertainable for the said reason. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed by the Tahasildar, Nuapada opposite party No. 2. 5. However, rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner disputing the contention made in the counter affidavit that Rule 8 (c) of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Rules") has got application or any joint verification is necessary for issuance of required endorsement under the Rules for removal of timber in question outside the State or the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 has application to the case. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no enquiry being required for removal of species mentioned in Schedule-, IN to destination outside the State if the same is applied in Form No. III-A accompanied by an affidavit confirming the ownership of the produce to- be exported as revealed from proviso to Sub-Rule 7 of the Rules, the contention that there is no inaction on the part of the D.F.O. in this case is without any substance. So also the ground taken that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is applicable to the present case inasmuch as the timber in question stands on a jungle kissam land, is misconceived inasmuch as the species in question is a exotic species and not of any natural growth and felling of the same is also not prohibited. Notice of this Court in this regard has been drawn to Rule 7 of the Rules and so also the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and also the notification of the Government of India vide Annexure-R/1 to the rejoinder affidavit. Notice of this Court in this regard has been drawn to Rule 7 of the Rules and so also the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and also the notification of the Government of India vide Annexure-R/1 to the rejoinder affidavit. Contending the aforesaid, it has been submitted that as the D.F.O. concerned is guilty of inaction in not issuing the necessary permission to the petitioner for removal of exempted species to outside the State, the D.F.O. be directed to issue the required permit. 7. In response, learned Counsel for the State, however, drawing the notice of this Court to the fact that the timbers are standing on a jungle kissam land and also in a reserve forest even if forest of exempted species, has submitted that enquiry is essential. Since the report in this regard from the Tahasildar concerned has not been received, the D.F.O. cannot be guilty of the inaction. 8. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that there is serious dispute with regard to requirement of enquiry before issuance of the endorsement to the petitioner to remove the exempted species beyond the border of the State of Odisha. Drawing notice of this Court to proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules, it has been submitted that no enquiry is necessary. But, the learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the enquiry is necessary inasmuch as the same is essential to know the ownership of the exempted timbers to be removed. He has further submitted with regard to the prima facie applicability of the Forest (Conservation) Act. 9. In view of the aforesaid, it would be apposite to have a look to the relevant portion of Rule 7 of the Rules which reads as thus "7. Application for permit and orders thereon - (1) Persons desiring to remove forest produce under Rule 4 shall apply for transit permit to the Forest Officer having jurisdiction in Form II or Form III, as the case may be, together with the declaration and undertaking as embodied therein. [(1-a) Persons desirous of removing forest produce mentioned in Schedule III to destinations outside the State shall apply in Form III-A, as an affidavit confirming the ownership of the produce to be exported, the details of the species and the number of logs with dimensions.) (Inserted vide Forest and Environment Department Notification No. 2280 dated 12th of December, 2002. [(1-a) Persons desirous of removing forest produce mentioned in Schedule III to destinations outside the State shall apply in Form III-A, as an affidavit confirming the ownership of the produce to be exported, the details of the species and the number of logs with dimensions.) (Inserted vide Forest and Environment Department Notification No. 2280 dated 12th of December, 2002. (1-A) Persons who have raised "Farm Forestry" plantations under the Social Forestry Project or beneficiaries under the "Forest Farming for the Rural Poor" component of the said project desiring to remove forest produce obtained from trees (excluding those mentioned in Schedule-II) upto two hundred and fifty in number under rule 4 shall apply for transit permit to the Range Officer having jurisdiction in Form II or Form III as the case may be together with the declaration and undertaking as embodied therein and a certificate from the concerned Range Officer (Social forestry Supervisor) of the Project in the following form:-- "Certified that the details mentioned in the application have been verified with the concerned revenue records and other relevant documents and I have found those to be correct. Accordingly, I recommend for issue of Transit Permit in favour of the applicant. Signature Name Full designation." (Inserted vide Forest and Environment Department Notification No. 1255 dated 18th of September, 1991) (2) On receipt of application, the Forest Officer having jurisdiction shall cause an enquiry, where necessary in the manner prescribed hereinafter, before issue or refusal of transit permit; (Provided that no enquiry may be necessary in cases mentioned in Sub-rule (1-A) if the certificate as required in the said sub-rule is furnished along with the application). (Inserted vide Forest and Environment Department Notification' No. 1255 dated 18th of September, 1991) (3) An appeal may be preferred against the order of refusal passed by the Forest Officer under Sub-rule (2) within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, before the Conservator of Forests of that circle, if the order appealed against is that of the Divisional Forest Officer or before the Divisional Forest Officer of that Division, if the order appealed against is that of the Assistant Conservator of Forests or Range Officer or the Forester, and the decision of the appellate authority in the matter shall be final. (4) In the case of an application for removal of forest produce from one's own private holding for bona fide domestic use, if no order is passed either refusing or granting the permit within forty-five days of the receipt of the application, the applicant shall be at liberty to file a representation before the Conservator of Forests of that Circle who shall pass order within sixty days of the date of the receipt of such representation and such order shall be final. (5) All orders refusing to grant transit permit shall be in writing and shall state the reasons of the refusal and shall be communicated to the applicant. (6) All persons who furnishes incorrect information or false declaration in Form II or Form III shall be deemed to have contravened the provisions of these rules. (7) Acceptance of the declaration of the applicant by the Forest Officer shall be deemed to be an act done in good faith. (8) In case of an application for removal of timber and other forest produce from private holdings the following procedure shall be followed, namely; (a) The application for transit permit shall be made by the owner of the plot (s) in Form-III (in duplicate) to the Divisional Forest Officer thereinafter referred to as "the Divisional Forest Officer") having jurisdiction. [(a-i) On receipt of an application under Sub-rule (1), the D.F.O. or the A.C.F. shall endorse the application within a fortnight for transit beyond the border of the State: Provided that in case of refusal, the D.F.O./A.C.F., as the case may be, will communicate the reasons in writing to the applicant. (Inserted vide Forest and Environment Department Notification No. 2280 dated 12th of December, 2002). Note 1 - Only timber in non-sawn form will be issued an endorsement under Clause (a-i) of Sub-rule (8) of Rule 7. Note 2 - Any agent or intermediary wishing to transport a transit free species across the border, on behalf of owners, shall carry with him authenticated copies of the authorisation as provided under Clause (a-i) of Sub-rule (8) of Rule 7). (b) xxxx (c) xxxx (d) xxxx (e) xxxx (f) xxxx (g) xxxx (h) xxxx (i) xxxx (j) xxxx (k) xxxx" 10. (b) xxxx (c) xxxx (d) xxxx (e) xxxx (f) xxxx (g) xxxx (h) xxxx (i) xxxx (j) xxxx (k) xxxx" 10. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule 7 (1) would go to show that a person, who desires to remove the forest produce for which a permit is a sine-qua-non under Rule 4 is required to apply in Form II or Form III together with the declaration and undertaking as embodied in the said Form to the concerned Forest Officer having jurisdiction to issue such permit. But Rule 7(1 -A) of the Rules speaks that the persons who have raised "Farm Forestry" and plantations under the Social Farming for the Rural Poor" desiring to remove the forest produce obtained from the trees upto two hundred and fifty in number excluding the species mentioned in Schedule-II shall apply for transit permit before the Range Officer having jurisdiction in Form II or Form III with declaration and undertaking as embodied therein and a certificate from the concerned Range Officer (Social Forestry Supervisor) of the Project in the form prescribed and though sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 prescribes that on receipt of an application under sub-rule 1, an enquiry is required, but for application under sub-rule (i-A), no enquiry is required. However, clause (1-a) to sub-rule (1) and clause (a-i) to sub-rule 8 of Rule 7 which was brought to the statute by virtue of an amendment vide Forest and Environment Department Notification No. 2280 dated 12th December, 2002 would go to show that for removal species in Schedule-III for which otherwise no permit is required under Rule 4 within the area mentioned in the said Schedule, an endorsement of D.F.O. or A.C.F., as the case may be, is required, if the same is required to be removed to destinations outside the State. Hence, the contention of the opposite party, more particularly, the opposite party No. 1 that an enquiry is provided under the Statute to ascertain the ownership of the exempted species before endorsement is required to be given, appears to this Court to be without any substance, the same is more visible from the fact that clause (a-i) to sub-rule 8 of Rule 7 which speaks that an application under sub-rule (1) for removal of the timber beyond the border of the State endorsement is required to be given within a fortnight and for refusal, reasons has to be communicated in writing to the applicants. 11. In the aforesaid premises, this Court is of the view that the D.F.O. could not have delay the matter on the ground that as enquiry was essential and the enquiry report of the Tahasildar is yet to be received, hence, there was no inaction on his part in this case. 12. Now coming to the other contention that since from the aforesaid, it reveals that the eucalyptus trees were on a forest and the land is also recorded as a forest land, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is applicable to such removal of trees from there appears to this Court to be premature inasmuch as no refusal has been made on the aforesaid ground yet and no order in this regard has been passed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that since the aforesaid has not been notified as a forest and the species are exotic and even if those are in the forest kissam land, the Forest (Conservation) Act has no application and, as such, the D.F.O be directed to issue necessary endorsement cannot be entertained at this stage inasmuch as the D.F.O. in this regard has not passed any order refusing endorsement on the aforesaid ground. However, since in this case there was inaction on the part of the opposite parties, more particularly, the opposite party No, 1-D.F.O. inasmuch as the petitioner though had made application on 12.3.2013, but the same has not been disposed of on the pretext that enquiry report is yet to be received, which is misconceived, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer, Khariar Forest Division, Khariar (opposite party No. 1) to pass necessary order on the application of the petitioner within fifteen days of receipt/production of the certified copy of this order keeping in mind that no enquiry is required for removal of the aforesaid species beyond the border of the State and also addressing the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Forest (Conservation) Act has no application in view of the clarification of the Government of India vide Annexure-R/1 to the Rejoinder Affidavit filed in this case. However, this order should not be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merit of the application for permit/endorsement made by the petitioner before the Divisional Forest Officer, Khariar Forest Division, Khariar (opposite party No. 1). Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Disposed off.