Court No. 2 (1490) 10.04.2025 (JPD 26) (S. Banerjee) Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side WPA 583 of 2025 Sourenee Leaves Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Amales Ray, Sr. Advocate Mr. Dheeraj Lakhotia Ms. Radhika Agarwal Mr. Nigam Mittal Ms. Prerna Mitra Ms. Meghna Joshi … for the petitioner Mr. Joyjit Choudhury, Ld. AAG Mr. Sumit Kumar … for the State It is the case of the petitioner that the State of West Bengal leased out 335.75 acres of land comprising Sourenee Tea Garden in favour of M/s. Sourenee Plantation Private Limited by execution of a lease deed dated April 20, 2009. Petitioners applied for permission for felling 515 numbers of shade trees in the retained area of Sourenee Tea Estate. The Collector, Darjeeling district by an order dated February 14, 2020 accorded permission in favour of the petitioner for feeling of 515 numbers of shade trees of various species in plot nos. 769, 1771, 1774 and 1775 under khatian no. 2 within 2 Mouza Sourenee Busty. The aforesaid trees as indicated in the order are of various species namely Dhupi, Chiloni and Shimul, Peases. The said permission was valid for a specific period of time as indicated in the said order. The petitioners also prayed for issuance of transit permit before the Divisional Forest Officer, Kurseong Division and such officer directed the Range Officer Bamanpokhari Range to issue the transit permit in favour of the Manager, Sourenee Tea Estate for felling of the aforesaid 515 numbers of shade trees. The petitioners prayed for extension of time on account of Covid Pandemic and the Divisional Forest Officer (‘DFO’, for short) by order dated March 16, 2022 granted extension of time by 60 days and further indicated that no further prayer for extension will be entertained. Thereafter, the Ranger Officer served an intimation for Zimmanama by a letter dated April 22, 2022 instructing the petitioners that the logs which have been kept inside the tea garden have been handed over to the Manager of the tea estate for zimma until further investigation is completed. In the meantime a complaint was lodged against the petitioners alleging that there has been 3 illegal felling of trees in the tea garden and acting on the basis of such complaint, an FIR was registered. Petitioners prayed for quashing of the FIR by filing a criminal revision application being CRR 133 of 2022 before this Hon’ble Court and a coordinate Bench by a judgment dated June 23, 2022 directed the petitioners to produce all the documents of permission to the Investigating Officer of the case within the time limit mentioned in the said order and if on the basis of the said order it was found that the petitioners were entitled to get the trees in accordance with law, the final report in respect of Mirik Police Station Case No. 19 of 2022 dated April 24, 2022 shall be filed without harassing the petitioners in any manner in accordance with law. Thereafter, the GR case no. 52 of 2022 was dropped on the basis of the report of the investigating officer. One Bharat Prakash Rai lodged a complaint before the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, (for short “the Tribunal”) complaining about mass tree felling in Sourenee Tea Garden. Such application was registered as Original Application No. 576 of 2022. The learned Tribunal, by an order dated December 21, 2022, directed the project proponent namely, M/s. Sourenee Tea Estate to be impleaded in the category of respondents. 4 Before the learned Tribunal, the District Magistrate filed an affidavit dated February 9, 2023 and in such affidavit the recommendations made were highlighted. Before the learned Tribunal the DFO suggested that in order to control soil erosion and stabilize landslides, land slip as well as to facilitate restoration of ecology and habitat in the hill slopes and high slope gradient area, no trees shall be cut further in plot no. 769. Permission for felling only shade trees in plot nos. 1773, 1774 and 1775 near Manju Park may be granted through District Magistrate, Darjeeling, if found satisfactory after re-evaluating the existing field situation. The learned Tribunal after taking note of the Action Taken Report and the order of the Hon’ble High Court in the order dated June 23, 2022 passed in the criminal revision application observed that since the Hon’ble High Court had already taken cognizance of the matter and issued appropriate directions, nothing further remains for adjudication in the said Original Application and accordingly the same was disposed of. Thereafter the petitioners prayed for permission to lift the logs from the tea estate. The DFO, Kurseong by a letter dated January 19, 2024 directed the petitioners to submit a compliance report on the recommendation given by the 5 Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Green Tribunal. The petitioners claim to have complied with such recommendations and by a letter dated April 1, 2024 intimated the DFO, Kurseong Division that 400 Dhupi trees in Sourenee Tea Estate have been planted between February 1, 2024 to March 30, 2024. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Sub-Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer issued a general notice for open public auction to be held on April 3, 2024. However, the auction did not take place on the said date and a further notice of public auction was issued fixing the date of auction on December 30, 2024. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the authorities to set aside the public auction held on December 30, 2024 for sale of felled trees/logs (Dhupi) lying at Sourenee Tea Estate and for a direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioners to lift, sell and move those felled trees lying at the said tea estate and also to issue transit passes in favour of the petitioner no. 1 for moving those felled trees. The petitioners have also prayed for an interim order restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the 6 felled trees/logs (Dhupi) lying at Sourenee Tea Estate. Mr. Roy, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners submits that Section 5(1) of the West Bengal Trees (Protection and Conservation in Non-Forest Areas) Act, 2006 (‘the 2006 Act’, for short) empowers the competent authority to grant permission for felling trees. He referred to the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the said Act and submits that insofar as the district of Darjeeling is concerned, the raiyat can obtain permission under Section 4A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (‘the 1955 Act’, for short) read with Rule 474 of the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual, 1991 (‘the Manual of 1991’, for short). He submits that the District Magistrate granted permission for felling of 515 shade trees in favour of the petitioners in terms of Section 4A of the 1955 Act and such permission has not yet been revoked by such authority. He further submits that the allegation of illegal felling of trees in the tea estate was the subject matter before this Hon’ble Court in the criminal revision application and the learned Tribunal. He submits that the petitioners having complied with the recommendations made by the Committee by planting the required number of Dhupi trees, the authorities ought to have granted 7 permission to the petitioners to lift the trees and grant transit passes. Mr. Ray further submits that unless and until the petitioners are held guilty of any offence under any provision of the relevant statute, the logs in question could not have been put to public auction. Mr. Ray further submits that the foundation for issuance of the memo dated June 1, 2022 is that the trees in question do not belong to shade trees and that the 2006 Act provides for felling of only shade trees. He submits that 2006 Act does not define the shade trees and it only specifies the trees in general. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the second proviso to Section 5(1) of the 2006 Act empowers the authority to grant permission under the provisions of Section 4A of the 1955 Act read with Rule 474 of the Manual of 1991 and by taking this Court through the provisions of Section 4A, Rule 474 of the Manual of 1991 as well as Appendix VIII, he submits that the second proviso of Section 5(1) shall apply only in case of felling of one tree for domestic use only. By referring to the notification dated March 1, 2007 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Forest Department, the learned Additional Advocate 8 General could contend that the DFO is the competent authority in the case in hand to deal with the application for felling of Dhupi trees. He submits that the petitioners did not obtain any permission of felling from the DFO and the District Magistrate was not competent to grant permission for felling of trees of more than one tree and which are also not for domestic purpose. The learned Additional Advocate General has filed a bunch of documents. The application made by the petitioner for felling of shade trees, the permission granted by the District Magistrate for felling of such trees and several documents issued by the DFO as well as other documents have been disclosed. By placing reliance on the letter dated June 1, 2022 issued by the DFO, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that on field verification it was found that 253 number of Dhupi trees of plot no. 769 was recommended for felling which were not shade trees and there were no tea bushes present beneath the trees. He further submits that the goods which are lying in the tea estate are perishable in nature and for the purpose of securing the value of such goods the authorities decided to conduct public auction. He submits that the public auction has already been conducted as per the general notice for public 9 auction and allotment order has already been issued to the highest bidder. In reply Mr. Ray, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner seriously disputes the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General and submits that it will be evident from the documents filed by the learned Additional Advocate General that no agreement between the highest bidder and the authorities have yet been entered into. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties this Court finds that several issues arise for consideration in this writ petition. Some of such issues are indicated hereinafter: i) Whether the District Magistrate was authorized to grant permission for felling of 515 number of shade trees which are lying in the tea estate including Dhupi trees? ii) Whether the felled trees becomes public property for which public auction could have been conducted? iii) Whether the 2006 Act provides for felling of shade trees only? 10 iv) Whether the direction issued by the District Magistrate to the Sub Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer, to auction the felled trees in question can be sustained in the eye of law. v) Whether any order revoking the felling permission was passed and communicated to the petitioner by the competent authority? Such issues cannot be decided without exchange of affidavits. In view thereof, let affidavit in opposition be filed by the respondents within three weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within a week thereafter. Parties will be at liberty to pray for inclusion of this matter in the list of hearing immediately after expiry of the period fixed for exchange of affidavits. Now this Court has to consider as to whether the petitioners are entitled to any interim order or not. It is not in dispute that the District Magistrate granted permission for felling of 515 number of trees. Record reveals that three men Committee constituted by BLLRO, Mirik had recommended the 11 felling of trees. The DFO, on field verification, found that 253 number of Dhupi trees in plot no. 769 which were recommended for felling, were not shade trees and since the 2006 Act provides for felling of only shade trees in the tea garden area , the felling permission needs to be revoked. After going through the 2006 Act this Court is of the prima facie view that there is no mention of any shade tree in the 2006 Act. Therefore, the question arises whether the DFO could have recommended for revocation of felling permission on the ground that the trees which were recommended for felling were not shade trees. In course of argument the learned Additional Advocate General could not produce any document to show that pursuant to recommendation made by the DFO, Kurseong Division, the District Magistrate has revoked the permission. When the trees were felled on the basis of permission granted by the District Magistrate, such authority was obliged to decide the fate of the felled produce by passing a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The foundation of the order directing public auction has 12 also not been disclosed in the bunch of documents filed by the Learned Additional Advocate General. This Court is of the prima facie view that public auction could not have been conducted without communicating such reasoned order to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the 253 number of Dhupi trees of plot no. 769 were felled prior to June, 2022. The public auction was conducted only on December 30, 2024. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the allotment letter has been issued in favour of the highest bidder but, it is not in dispute that as on this date the goods are still lying in the property of the tea estate. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the State that the public auction had to be conducted only on the ground that the same was perishable in nature. It is not in dispute that the petitioners did not participate in the said auction. This Court is, therefore, inclined to grant an interim relief in favour of the writ petitioners. There shall be an order of injunction restraining the respondent authorities and their men and agents from lifting and/or moving the 13 felled trees or logs (Dhupi) lying at the Sourasenee Tea Estate till the end of May, 2025 or until further orders, whichever is earlier. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners shall not be entitled to claim any damage for loss in the value of the goods in the meantime. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)