- (1.) IT is reported by the Bench Secretary that the lawyers are on strike and thus they have abstained from attending the Court. The Court has perused the record of the writ petition and the submissions made therein and is passing orders on merits.
(2.) THE prayer of the petitioner is that he be permitted to cut 45 trees, 42 of Shisham and 3 of Shamer on his pilot no. 499/19. THE petitioner claims that he is the tenure-holder of this plot and as the trees are too old, he is entitled to cut them and for each tree that he will cut, he will plant another one. The contention of the petitioner us that the District Forest Officer, Pilibhit or the District Magistrate Pilibhit are not passing any order on his application dated 16th May, 1990 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition; for permitting him to cut these 45 trees. Notwithstanding, that the respondents aforesaid may be committing an irregularity is not acting on petitioner's application, it is not every irregularity in which High Court must necessarily issue a writ and that also a prerogative writ. Even on the submission of the petitioner, what the petitioner is intending to do, is not cutting trees, but virtually a forest.
(3.) IN the writ petition it is pointed out that the petitioner has a right to cut his trees under the INdian Forest Act, 1927. This may be so. But the Constitution of INdia particularly Article 48-A and further Article 51-A sub-clause (g) casts an obligation on the State and every citizen not to disbalance the ecology and environment and respect the green cover and the forest wealth of nation If every one starts doing what the petitioner intends to do, then the green cove: and the forest wi!i be subject to an accelerated rate of vanishing and will leave a disbalanced ecology and the balance of Nature may not even be restored in a century. Thus, in whatever manner the respondents may meet the request of the petitioner, this Court will certainly not issue any writ on thus petition.;