PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary GB Versus ABDUL GHAYAS
SYED ARSHAD HUSSAIN SHAH, C.J.--- Through this civil petition, present petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment/order dated 20.08.2020 passed by learned Chief Court, whereby writ petition of the present respondent was accepted and present petitioners were directed to allow the respondent to transport timber in volume of 14274.40 CFT as per permit number 407/2020, from Chillas to Rawalpindi. The present controversy cropped up when petitioner (Secretary Forest) withdrew the letter dated 10.06.2020 issued by the office of the respondent No. 2 with the direction to the petitioner No. 3 to ensure that no timber is transported as allowed in the earlier letter dated 10-06-2020.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.02.2020 respondent applied to petitioners for grant of a transport permit under Timber Disposal Policy, 2020 for transportation of timber measuring 30,000/- CFT situated at Botogah Chillas. Upon the said application. respondent No. 2 sought report from the concerned authorities. The respondent No. 5 vide letter dated 12-03-2020, on the basis of report of Regional Forest Officer (respondent No. 6) confirmed that availability of timber measuring 30,000/- CFT on Botogah Chillas as well as reflection of name of respondent in the list of 2015 and sought further guidance and permission regarding disposal of the said timber. It is also on record that petitioner No.4/Conservator Forest Diamer/Astore Circle vide letter dated 15.04.2020 confirmed that the assessment/ checking team had erroneously missed the insertion of the name of the respondent in the timber assessment list (TAL 2020) inspite of the fact that name of the respondent was included in the assessment list of timber policy of 2015.
3. The Chief Conservator Forest/ Petitioner No. 3 vide letter dated 14.05.2020 forwarded the case to petitioner No. 2/ Secretary Forest stating that impugned timber was included in the list of 2015 however, the same could not be included in assessment list of 2020 and further sought guidance from petitioner No. 2. On the basis of recommendations of DFO, Chief Conservator and Conservator Forest i.e. petitioners Nos. 2 to 4, petitioner No. 2/Secretary Forest approved inclusion of 30,000/- CFT illegal timber in the assessment list of 2020 in favour of respondent from Botogah Chillas subject to completion of other codal formalities as per timber disposal policy 2020.
4. The petitioner No. 5, DFO Chillas vide office order 23.06.2020 sought detail report of the timber for marking list for approval and transportation of timber from Botogah Nallah under Timber Disposal Policy, 2020. The RFO physically visited the site for necessary verification and after completion of verification respondent was allowed to deposit required fees/royalty etc. for transportation of 14275/- CFT as per transport permit. After fulfilling all the requirements and payment of dues, respondent got loaded timber into the trucks and when he was about to move towards down country, petitioner No. 2 got issued inspection order dated 22.07.2020, which culminated into filing a writ petition by the respondent before the learned Chief Court which was allowed vide above referred judgment hence the instant civil petition for leave appeal before this Court.
5. Learned Advocate General, Gilgit-Baltistan argued that learned Chief Court without having called for comments from present petitioners and on the first attendance in writ petition, allowed the writ petition of present respondent which being against the principal of law was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside. It was further argued by learned Advocate General that disputed timber is an illegal timber which cannot be transported to down country as the timber was not included in the timber disposal policy, 2020 while learned Chief Court did not take into consideration these vital and essential facts and grounds went on to pass the impugned judgment, hence the same was liable to set aside. He maintained that as per decision of Gilgit-Baltistan Cabinet, forest department is bound to follow the policy/guidelines, whereas as per the decision no timber was allowed to be transported unless the same was included in Timber Policy, 2020 while learned Chief Court ignored this fact and passed the impugned judgment which was liable to be set aside. In view of above submissions, learned Advocate General prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment to meet the ends of justice and equity. On the other hand, learned counsel for present respondent argued that the impugned judgment being a well reasoned and well founded one does not warrant any interference of this Court, hence the same may please be maintained.
6. We have heard learned counsel for parties and with their able assistance have also gone through the record of case as well as the impugned judgment.
7. From perusal of available record, it is crystal clear that the timber in question was reflected in the timber policy of 2015, which could not be reflected in the latest policy of 2020 due to some dispute regarding the ownership of the same. This hard fact is admitted in the report of the concerned staff who verified the same on the spot. The Advocate General Gilgit-Baltistan also could not deny this hard fact about inclusion of the timber in question and how can he do so in the presence of the available record in the case file. If it was wrongly reported by forest staff and on the basis of which the timber permit was issued, then legal action should have been taken against that staff, however for the sake of arguments it is further frankly and rightly conceded by the Advocate General Gilgit-Baltistan appearing on behalf of the petitioners that there is no record of initiation of any inquiry by the concerned authority i.e. petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 against the remaining petitioners regarding illegally furnishing false report pertaining to the timber in question. Hence, the same acts done on the part of forest staff could not be attributed to present respondent to punish him for no fault of his.
8. In the light of what has been stated above, we do not see any occasion to interfere into the just an equitable conclusion arrived at by the Chief Court in its detail judgment. Consequently, above C.P.L.A. No. 82/2020 is dismissed being devoid of any substance. Judgment dated 20-08-2020 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court in Writ Petition No. 167/2020 is maintained. These were the reasons of our short order dated 14.12.2021 which is reproduced as under:
"We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and also perused record of the case as well as the impugned judgment.
2. For the reasons to be recorded later, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment of the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. Leave in the instant CPLA is refused and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the Judg ment/ Order dated 20.08.2020 in Writ Petition No. 167/2020 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court stands maintained"
SA/34/GB Petition dismissed.