High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Harish Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 October, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harish Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 October, 2009
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH



                                        CWP No. 15485 of 2009
                                        Date of Decision: 08.10.2009



Harish Kumar                                             ..Petitioner


                         versus



State of Punjab and others.                             ..Respondents


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


Present :   Mr. Tajender K.Joshi, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.


                                *****

T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral)

This petition purports to have been filed in public interest.

It prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the decision taken by the

respondents in a meeting held on 01.07.2009 whereby the respondents

have decided to auction the standing trees growing on either side of

National Highway No. 1 from Shambu Barrier to Amritsar to facilitate

widening of the said highway.

The petitioner who is a dismissed employee of the Punjab

State Forest Development Corporation finds fault with decision taken
CWP No. 15485 of 2009 [2]

by the respondents as according to him instead of auctioning the trees,

the process of felling and removal ought to have been undertaken by the

Corporation itself through labour employed by it. It is alleged that the

process of auction and allotment of different section of highways to

different contractors for removal of the standing timbers would result in

formation of cartels among the contractors thereby causing prejudice

to public interest. It is also alleged that the process of removal of trees

through the medium of private contractors may result in illegal felling

of trees. It is on that premise argued by learned counsel for the

petitioner that this Court could interfere in public interest to quash the

decision and direct that the felling work should be undertaken by the

Corporation itself through labour employed by it.

We have given our careful consideration to the

submissions made at the bar but find no merit in the same whatsoever.

Apart from the fact that the cloak of public interest worn by a dismissed

employee of the corporation does not inspire confidence about his

bonafides, we are of the view that the decision whether felling and

removal of the trees should be by the Corporation itself through the

labour employed by it or should be auctioned amongst contractors

willing to purchase the same, is a matter which must be left to the

wisdom of the Corporation or the State Government. The allegation

that removal of the trees by auction through a private contractor would

result in formation of cartels is without any basis whatsoever. In case

any such mischief occurs which may vitiate the auction or the result

thereof, an aggrieved party shall be free to seek redress in an

appropriate proceeding in this Court. For the present, it is pre-mature
CWP No. 15485 of 2009 [3]

for the petitioner or anyone else to allege that there is a likelihood of a

cartel formation in connection with the proposed auction. So also the

allegation that the allotment of different sections of highway for

purposes of removal of trees would result in illegal felling of the trees is

without any basis. It is not clear whether all the trees growing on the

periphery of National Highway have been earmarked for felling or the

same is to be made on a selective basis. If all the trees growing on

either side of the National Highway are earmarked for felling, the

question of illegal felling would not arise. In case, however, some of the

trees only have been marked for removal the Corporation would take

care to ensure that only marked trees are felled. Even here the

apprehension of the petitioner that some illegal felling may take place

does not appear to be well founded.

In the result, there is no merit in this petition which fails

and is hereby dismissed. No costs.

(T.S.THAKUR)
CHIEF JUSTICE

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
08.10.2009
‘ravinder’