- (1.) These petitions have been listed before us on a reference by Bakthavatsalam, J., who has noticed a conflict of his views with a judgment of this Court in Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam V. State Of Tamil Nadu, 1985 2 MadLJ 67 . Since we propose to dispose of the petitions by not merely answering the reference but deciding all the issues involved in the case we have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.
(2.) Before, however, we advert to the facts of the case, we may at this stage refer to the order of reference which says: Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision of Ratnam, J. in Kodaika-Nal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam V. State Of Tamil Nadu, 1985 2 MadLJ 67 , which supports his contention, the learned Government Advocate appearing for forest cases draws my attention to Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 (XVII of 1955), and submits that this provision was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge, when the judgment referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was delivered. The learned Government Advocate contends that the term 'damage' which occurs in Section 3(2) of the abovementioned Act, will include peeling of wattle bark. The learned Counsel wants to sustain his arguments based upon certain expert opinion. Prima facie, I find that there is some point in the argument of the learned Government Advocate at this stage. Since the issue is governed by the judgment of Ratnam, J. as on date, I direct the office to place all the papers before My Lord, the Officiating Chief Justice for being posted before a Division Bench for considering the scope of the term 'damage' which occurs in Section 3(2) of the Act mentioned above. Interim injunction already granted is made absolute. But it is open to the respondent/ department to take any action if the petitioner contravenes any of the provisions of the Act. This order shall not be taken as governing all instances, in which action has to be taken for the contravention of the provisions of the Act.
(3.) It seems, however, that a reference to Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955 (XVII of 1955), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is misplaced. The facts of the case do not warrant any examination of the term "damage" used in the said section beyond examining the same to understand the effect of the provisions in Section 3 of the Act as a whole, but since the facts of the case when examined in the light of the scheme of the Act, reveal that a fresh look to the so-called peeling off of wattle bark has to be given and in that context, the view expressed in the case of Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam V. State Of Tamil Nadu, 1985 2 MadLJ 67 , evaluated, we proceed accordingly to first take notice of the provisions of the Act followed by the statement of law in the case of Kodaikanal Wattle Bark Vyaparikal Sangam V. State Of Tamil Nadu, 1985 2 MadLJ 67 , and next, the facts of the case.;