ORDER : 1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs: “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner as per the provisions contained in an Order No FFE B-A(3)4/99 dated 10 September 2002 Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, vide Annexure P-1,and grant extension in time for demarcation of land, enumeration, marking and felling of trees beyond the prescribe year of felling in Tiyari Beat of Holi Block/in the interest of justice. (ii) That the period during which the case of the petitioner for extension of time remained with the respondents may kindly be excluded for granting extension in time for demarcation of land, enumeration, marking and felling of trees.” 2. Respondent No. 1 approved ten years felling programme (for short ‘TYFP’) for felling of trees from private areas of Churah, Chamba, Dalhousie and Bharmour Forest Divisions of Chamba Forest circle from 2009-10 to 2018-19 vide communication dated 06.03.2010 (Annexure P-2). 2018-19 was allocated for felling of trees in Tiyari beat of Holi block in Trehta range of Bharmour Forest Division (for short ‘Tiyari Beat’) under TYFP. 3. Petitioner applied for felling permission under TYFP in respect of land in Khasra No. 10/7/2 measuring 8956 bighas situate at Mauza Dhar Drabthon, Sub-Tehsil Holi, District Chamba, H.P. during the year 2018-19 which falls within Tiyari beat. The demarcation and marking/enumeration etc. of the trees, in pursuance to the application of petitioner, could not be effected on account of heavy snow precipitation, frigid temperature and non-availability of staff. 4. Petitioner applied to the competent authority for extension of time under Clause 8 of the order dated 10th September, 2002 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 1 under Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Preservation Act, 1978 (for short the ‘1978 Act’). The Divisional Forest Officer Bharmour (DFO), Chief Conservator of Forest, Chamba (CCF) recommended the case of the petitioner for extension of time. No Final decision on the request of the petitioner for extension of time was taken by the competent authority. Noticeably, 2018-19 was the last year of TYFP. 5. On 19.03.2019, petitioner made another representation to the CCF, Chamba. The Divisional Forest Officer Bharmour (DFO), Chief Conservator of Forest, Chamba (CCF) recommended the case of the petitioner for extension of time. No Final decision on the request of the petitioner for extension of time was taken by the competent authority. Noticeably, 2018-19 was the last year of TYFP. 5. On 19.03.2019, petitioner made another representation to the CCF, Chamba. The relevant extract of the said communication dated 19.03.2019 is reproduced as under: “The approved period of Ten Years Felling Program in respect of Bharmour Forest Division will expire with the close of this current Financial Year 2018-2019 and a new Ten Years Felling Programme i.e. for the period 2019-20 to 2028-29 in respect of Bharmour Forest Division has yet formulated. It is worthwhile to mention here that no trees have been felled and sale under approved ten-year felling program in this beat Tiyari. So, keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated above and considering the genuineness of the case, fervently and humbly request your honourable self to kindly open the Tiyari beat for felling and sale of trees from private land for the year 2019-20 else the firm has to suffer huge loss which is irrevocable.” I shall be highly thankful and obliged for your kind consideration and approval please. 6. In the originally proposed TYFP for 2019-20 to 2028-29, the felling in Tiyari beat was scheduled in the year 2028-29. On the above noted representation of petitioner, the DFO Bharmour recommended the year 2019-20 for felling in Tiyari beat under proposed TYFP instead of 2028-29. CCF Chamba and PCCF, Himachal Pradesh also concurred with the proposal of the DFO, however, Respondent No. 1 declined the said proposal vide communication dated 29.06.2020 (Annexure P-13) on the ground that it would amount to preponement of TYFP, which was impermissible in law. 7. Aggrieved against the communication dated 29.06.2020 (Annexure P-13) issued by Respondent No. 1, the petitioner is before this Court by way of instant petition. 8. The contention of petitioner is that Clause 8 of the order dated 10.09.2002 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 1 entitled the petitioner for extension of time as the demarcation and marking of trees etc. could not be done for the reason beyond the control of all concerned. As per petitioner, despite recommendations for extension of time in the case of petitioner, respondent No. 1 and 2 failed to take final decision. could not be done for the reason beyond the control of all concerned. As per petitioner, despite recommendations for extension of time in the case of petitioner, respondent No. 1 and 2 failed to take final decision. Petitioner has further maintained that though its request had only been for extension of time under Clause 8 of the order dated 10.09.2002 ibid, but the respondents wrongly construed the same to be a request for preponing of TYFP for the years 2019-20 to 2028-29. 9. In response, respondents have taken exception to the claim of petitioner on following grounds: (i) The preponement of felling programme was not permissible being not only in violation of order dated 10.09.2002, but also contrary to directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court barring State of Himachal Pradesh from making any deviation from the ten years felling programme in accordance with the 1978 Act. (ii) Dhar Drabthon Forest of Trehta Range Bharmour Forest Division, comprising of an area of 6784 hectares, was notified as “protected forests” vide Notification dated 4th March, 1977. (iii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.12.1996 passed the following order in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 titled as T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India: “In view of the great significance of the points involved in these matters, relating to the protection and conservation of the forests throughout the country, it was considered necessary that the Central Government as well as the Governments of all the status are heard. Accordingly, notice was issued to all of them. We have heard the learned Attorney General for the Union of India, learned counsel appearing for the States and the parties/applicants and in addition, the learned Amicus Curiae, Shri H.N Salve, assisted by Sarvashri U.U. Lalit, Mahender Das and P.K Manohar. After hearing all the learned counsel, who have rendered very able assistance to the court, we have formed the opinion that the matters require a further indepth hearing to examine all the aspects relating to the National Forest Policy. For this purpose, several points which emerged during the course of the hearing require further study by the learned counsel and, therefore, we defer the continuation of this hearing for some time to enable the learned counsel to further study these points. However, we are of the opinion that certain interim directions are necessary at this stage in respect of some aspects. However, we are of the opinion that certain interim directions are necessary at this stage in respect of some aspects. We have heard the learned Attorney General and the other learned counsel on these aspects. It has emerged at the hearing, that there is a misconception in certain quarters about the true scope of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (for short the ‘Act’) and the meaning of the word “forest” used therein. There is also a resulting misconception about the need of prior approval of the central Government, as required by Section 2 of the Act, in respect of certain activities in the forest area which are more often of a commercial nature. It is necessary to clarify that position. The Forest Conservation Act 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance and therefore, the provisions made herein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word “forest: must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of section 2 (i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term “forest land”, occurring in section 2, will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense but also any area recorded as forest in the government record irrespective of the ownership. This is now it has to be understood for the purpose of section 2 of this Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. It has further been directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under: (i) General: 1. In view of the meaning of the word “forest” in the Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the central Government is required for any non-forest activity within the area of any “forest.” In accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that the running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or ply-wood mills, and mining or any mineral are non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government, Accordingly, any such activity is prima facie violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Every State Government must properly ensure total cessation of all such activities forthwith.” (iv) The Supreme Court again in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad (supra) passed the following order in I.A. No. 2370: “The High Court of Himachal Pradesh passed an order on 28.05.2008 in regard to felling of trees on private lands which came within the definition of forest land. The order was challenged both by the land owners and contractors on the one side and the State Government on the other. In view of the controversy, we referred the matter to the Central Empowered Committee. The CEC after considering the relevant issues in detail has filed a report. The recommendations and suggestions made by the CEC are acceptable to all the parties before us. The CEC has recommended that the order passed by this Court on 08.05.2009 in I.A. No. 2370 of 2008 should be extended to the felling of Khair trees on privately owned non-forest areas also subject to the following conditions: “(i) no felling of trees, including of Khair trees, from the forest area will be permissible in violation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Order dated 12.12.1996. (ii) no deviation from the ten-year felling programme fixed by the Forest Department in accordance with the provisions of the land preservation Act, 1978 will be permissible. (iii) no Katha/Kutch manufacturing unit will be permitted to be established/allowed to operate or to expand its capacity in violation of the Hon'ble supreme Court orders dated 29/30.10.2002.” (Copy Annexed as Annexure R-V).” (v) The land in respect of which petitioner had sought permission for felling of trees, formed a compact block of above five hectares and as such was liable to be treated as forest in terms of Notification dated 19.12.2011 issued by respondent No. 1. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents and also gone through the record carefully. 11. Clause 8 of the order dated 10.09.2002 reads as under: 8. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents and also gone through the record carefully. 11. Clause 8 of the order dated 10.09.2002 reads as under: 8. In all cases (other than those mentioned in Para 6 and 7 of this order), where demarcation of land and marking of trees have not been done during the prescribed year in accordance with the approved ten years felling programme, permission to demarcate the land, marking and felling of trees may be granted beyond prescribed year of felling by the: (i) the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests upto one year. (ii) State Government upto two years subject to their being satisfied that sufficient reasons. (iii) The State Government upto two years subject to its being satisfied that there exists any of the following reasons for granting such permission namely: (a) If there is dispute over the title or ownership or possession of land on the production of a documentary evidence such as orders/certificate of the Court etc. (b) If the area is in the ten years felling programme but the same has not been shown therein the certificate from the Divisional Forest Officer concerned. (c) If the demarcation of land could not be made due to non-availability of staff on furnishing a certificate from the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) or the Divisional Forest Officer concerned as the case may be to this effect. (d) If the process of demarcation of land, marking and felling or trees has not been completed due to a natural calamity. (e) If the settlement of rates of trees has not been arrived at during the prescribed year of felling. (f) It there is any other reason beyond the control of the land owner. Provided that the State Government may allow felling of the trees upto two years and six months after the prescribed year of felling in the snow bund areas.” 12. It is not in dispute that petitioner had applied for felling permission of trees in land falling in Tiyari beat under TYFP during the year 2018-19. The felling permission is preceded by demarcation of land and marking etc. of trees to be felled, which admittedly could not be done due the reasons that area in question had become inaccessible for humans on account of inclement weather conditions. The felling permission is preceded by demarcation of land and marking etc. of trees to be felled, which admittedly could not be done due the reasons that area in question had become inaccessible for humans on account of inclement weather conditions. The area was under 8 to 10 feet of snow, it was under threat of snow avalanche and landslides and night temperature ranged from-15 to 25 degrees centigrade. Additionally, there was severe shortage of staff. In the light of existence of aforesaid circumstances, the entitlement of petitioner to apply for extension under Clause 8 supra was clearly made out. 13. It is evident from the records especially documents Annexure P-7 to P-9 placed on record that DFO Bharmour and CCF Chamba had recommended the case of petitioner for extension of time. The contention of petitioner that its request for extension of time remained undecided has not been specifically rebutted by the respondents. There is nothing in the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner that any final decision was taken by the competent authority on the request of the petitioner for extension of time. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that respondents have failed to discharge their legal obligation to decide the representation of petitioner for extension of time in terms of clause 8 of order dated 10.9.2002 issued by the State Government under section 4 of 1978 Act. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for directions to respondents to take final decision on its request for extension of time requires to be allowed. 14. Though with the lapse of time the other request of petitioner for allocation of year 2019-20 for felling in Tiyari beat might have become incapable of acceptance, yet to remove any reservations about the nature and effect of such request and also the stand adopted by respondent No. 1 thereon, we deem it necessary to deal with following issues before issuance of appropriate directions: (i) Whether Respondent No. 1 was right in considering the request letter dated 19.3.2019 of the petitioner as request for preponement of ensuing TYFP for the period 2019-20 to 2028-29. (ii) Whether the allotment of year 2019-20 for felling of trees from private land in Tiyari beat would have amounted to deviation in the ten years felling programme so as to attract the bar created by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad (supra)? 15. (ii) Whether the allotment of year 2019-20 for felling of trees from private land in Tiyari beat would have amounted to deviation in the ten years felling programme so as to attract the bar created by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad (supra)? 15. Perusal of relevant extract of request letter dated 19.03.2019 of petitioner, as noticed above, does not lead to inference that it was a request for preponement of TYFP. The request of petitioner in fact appeared to be a request for approving the forthcoming TYFP for Bharmour Division in such a manner that Tiyari beat was opened for felling of trees during the very first year of said programme i.e. 2019-20. The reasons for such request were obvious as the allocated year of 2018-19 had come to an end without final decision on the request of petitioner for extension of time. 16. It is clearly evident from the communication dated 29.06.2020 (Annexure P-13) whereby not only the case of petitioner was rejected in the context of its request letter dated 19.03.2019, but also ten years felling programme for the years 2019-20 to 2028-29 for the Bharmour Forest Division was approved. That being so, the ten years felling programme for the Bharmour Division came into effect for all practical purposes w.e.f. the date of its approval i.e. 29.06.2020, when the first year of such programme i.e. 2019-20 had already elapsed. Hence, unless the ten years felling programme was in existence, the question of its preponement, in our considered view, would not have arisen and also could not have been made subject of consideration for the rejection of request of petitioner, in terms of its request letter dated 19.03.2019. 17. Evidently, the respondents had based its decision on the opinion rendered by the Law Department of the State Government. The opinion so rendered has also been reproduced by the respondents in their reply. The relevant extract of the opinion of Law Department as reproduced in the reply is as under: “Preponing the felling programme may not only amount to deviation and in violation of the provisions of the Order of 2002 issued under the HP Land Preservation Act, 1978, but also contrary to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which debars the State of HP not to deviate from the Ten-Year Felling Programme fixed in accordance with the Land Preservation Act 1978.” 18. Notwithstanding the opinion of law department, it was still for the administrative department to have weighed such opinion against the strength of available facts and circumstances. The required exercise does not appear to have been made and such inaction not only adversely affected the rights of petitioner but also the purpose of 1978 Act. 19. The next ensuing TYFP was yet to be finalized. DFO Bharmour had made an initial proposal for the programme for his Division whereby the year 2028-29 was proposed for the Tiyari beat of Holi block in Trehta range of Bharmour Forest Division. The same officer then proposed a change in the final programme by including Trehta range for the year 2019-20. Such proposal was communicated by the DFO Bharmour on 30.03.2019 to CCF Chamba. The reasons for such proposal were detailed as absence of demarcation process as also non-marking etc. of trees due to heavy snow precipitation, frigid temperature and non-availability of staff. It was also mentioned that in Trehta range, there had been no felling or removal of trees from the private lands for sale under the approved TYFP in the prescribed year of 2018-19. Since the felling programme for next year commencing from 2019-20 was yet to be finalized, there should not have been any impediment in allowing the felling of trees in Trehta range as proposed by the DFO. Not only DFO Bharmour, but the Principal CCF, Himachal Pradesh had further made similar recommendations to respondent No. 1. It was clearly specified that opening of Trehta beat for felling trees during the first year of next ensuing TYFP would not in any manner have adverse effect from silvicultural point of view. It was further mentioned that there had been no felling in the said beat for the last about two decades. One of the notable reasons for such recommendations was that such allowance would take care of the imbalance caused due to the fact that private areas in adjoining beats got worked regularly in the past, whereas the areas of Tiyari beat had remained untouched. The rejection letter dated 29.06.2020 (Annexure P-6), however, was completely silent as to all these technical aspects of the matter. In view of this matter the reasons for which the request letter dated 19.03.2019 of the petitioner has been rejected are neither tenable nor can be sustained. 20. The rejection letter dated 29.06.2020 (Annexure P-6), however, was completely silent as to all these technical aspects of the matter. In view of this matter the reasons for which the request letter dated 19.03.2019 of the petitioner has been rejected are neither tenable nor can be sustained. 20. From the above analysis, we have no hesitation to hold that there was no legal impediment in allowing even the request of the petitioner made vide request letter dated 19.03.2019. As per technical advice, the proposal was feasible and beneficial, yet the same was rejected by a cryptic order. The rejection order Annexure P-13 cannot be sustained for the reasons stated above and in any case cannot be construed to be the rejection of request of petitioner for extension of time under clause 8 of order dated 10.9.2002. 21. As regards the other defences raised on behalf of the respondents vide their reply, as noticed above, none of them were considered or quoted as reasons for the rejection of the request letter of petitioner dated 19.03.2019. In case any of such reason was validly available for the rejection of the request made by the petitioner, the same should have been considered by the competent authority, however, since no such consideration was done, the grounds of objections so now taken in reply cannot be gone into in the present proceedings. 22. Resultantly, petition is allowed. Rejection order dated 29.06.2020 (Annexure P-13) is quashed and set aside to the extent it rejected the prayer of petitioner. The respondents are directed to consider the request of petitioner for extension of time under Clause 8 of the order dated 10.09.2002 and pass a speaking order thereon within six weeks from the production of a copy of this judgment before the competent authority. Since the petitioner cannot be faulted for lapse of the time in between, the time so elapsed shall be excluded from consideration of time for extension, if found permissible, under Clause 8 of order dated 10.09.2002. 23. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.