M/S Andaman Cane Development Centre And ANR v. The Dir Gen Of Forests And Special Secretary, Min Of Env. And Forests And Climate Change And ORS
30.08.2023 Supple Item 1 Ct. No.1 PG/KS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR) M.A.T. 28 of 2023 With IA No. CAN 1 of 2023 M/s. Andaman Cane Development Centre, Basantipur & Anr.
Vs.
The Director General of Forests & Special Secretary & Ors.
Mr. Kallol Basu Mr. Nilanjan Basu Mr. Shamik Sarkar ......for the Appellants Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi Mr. Ramendu Agarwal ......for the Respondents 1.
This intra-Court appeal by the writ petitioners is directed against an order dated 23rd August, 2023 in W.P.A. 894 of 2023 by which the learned Single Bench refused to grant an interim order.
2.
Mr. Basu, learned advocate appearing for the appellants would strenuously contend that the decision taken by the authorities is in utter derogation of the policy guidelines, which were framed in the matter of allotment of cane and the consequential order dated 24th April, 2023 passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Planning and Monitoring), Andaman and Nicobar Administration also is thoroughly flawed and is liable to be set aside on several grounds, which have been canvassed in the writ petition.
3.
The learned advocate has drawn our attention to the minutes of the meeting convened on 26th August, 2009 as well the decision of the Central Empowered Committee dated 26th November, 2015 in which the committee had taken note of the order and direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the learned advocate has also referred to the working plan of Baratang Division, more particularly in Section 4, which deals with method of treatment for cane.
4.
These documents have been referred to substantiate the contention that the change of policy in the matter of allotment of cane is wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and it will be counterproductive. The learned Single Bench while declining to grant an interim order has noted the submissions made by the appellants/writ petitioners as well as the submissions made on behalf of the respondents. It has been noted by the learned Single Bench that the present policy, with which the appellants are aggrieved has been in vogue from the year 2020.
5.
In such circumstances, unless and until the writ petition is heard and decided, the correctness of the policy decision or the jurisdiction of the concerned authority to take such a policy decision or whether the policy decision is in derogation with any of the earlier decisions taken, all issues can be decided
only after affidavit is filed by the respondents and the writ petition is heard and decided. If the interim prayer sought for by the writ petitioners was acceded to and if it had been granted, it would tantamount to allowing the writ petition at the interim stage, which is impermissible in law. 6.
Therefore, we are of the clear view that the learned Single Bench rightly declined to grant interim order. In the result, the order impugned does not call for any interference and the appeal stands dismissed.
7.
The respondents are directed to comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Bench and file their affidavit in opposition; reply, if any, can be filed by the appellants and the matter as directed, will be listed in the next sitting of the Circuit Bench of the High Court at Calcutta at Port Blair, which is scheduled to commence on and from 18th September, 2023.
8.
No costs.
9.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.
(T. S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)