9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Dismissal of writ petition by High Court without addressing important legal questions raised. 2. Validity of prohibition on cutting trees in village Mirzapur under successive notifications. 3. Allegations of arbitrary and unreasonable actions by Forest Minister and State Government. 4. Delay in issuing permit for felling trees and subsequent issuance of notification prohibiting tree cutting. 5. Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution challenged. Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal challenged the High Court's summary dismissal of the writ petition without addressing important legal questions raised. The appellants argued that the High Court should have dealt with the merits of the case instead of dismissing it summarily. The Supreme Court held that important legal questions had indeed been raised, warranting a detailed consideration by the High Court under its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Issue 2: The case involved the validity of the prohibition on cutting trees in village Mirzapur under successive notifications issued by the Punjab Government. The notifications, spanning over 35 years, imposed restrictions on tree cutting for commercial purposes. The appellants contended that the absolute ban for an additional 20 years was unreasonable and infringed upon their Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Issue 3: Allegations of arbitrary and unreasonable actions were made against the Forest Minister and the State Government. The Minister was accused of interfering in the permit issuance process and pressuring the right-holders to enter into agreements with specific individuals for tree sales. The State Government's actions were questioned for issuing a notification prohibiting tree cutting during the pendency of the writ petition. Issue 4: The delay in issuing the permit for felling trees and the subsequent issuance of a notification prohibiting tree cutting raised concerns. The appellants had already paid the sale consideration to the right-holders, and the permit's time extension was sought but not granted. The issuance of the notification further complicated the situation, leading to the legal challenge under Article 19(1)(g). Issue 5: The appellants challenged the notification under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, arguing that it unreasonably restricted their rights. The Supreme Court acknowledged the complexity of the legal issues involved and directed the High Court to rehear the case, emphasizing the need for a detailed decision on the merits within a specified timeframe.
|
