The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the auctioning of resin blazes by the HP State Forest Development Corporation Limited.
The petitioner had alleged that the corporation had fixed an annual yield of 55 quintals per section, which was higher than the prescribed yield of 35-40 quintals per section in the working plan of the Solan Forest Division.
However, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Satyen Vaidya observed that there was no substantiation on record to support the petitioner’s claim.
Moreover, the working plan of the Solan Forest Division had expired in 2017, making the petitioner’s allegations suspicious.
The respondents had also filed a supplementary affidavit, which showed that the yield could vary between 27 to more than 56 quintals per section, and that fixing the yield was a scientific job best left to experts.
The court held that it lacked expertise on the subject and would not interfere with the fixing of yield.
In view of the discussions, the court found no merit in the PIL and dismissed it, along with the pending applications.
The post appeared first on .
The petitioner had alleged that the corporation had fixed an annual yield of 55 quintals per section, which was higher than the prescribed yield of 35-40 quintals per section in the working plan of the Solan Forest Division.
However, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Satyen Vaidya observed that there was no substantiation on record to support the petitioner’s claim.
Moreover, the working plan of the Solan Forest Division had expired in 2017, making the petitioner’s allegations suspicious.
The respondents had also filed a supplementary affidavit, which showed that the yield could vary between 27 to more than 56 quintals per section, and that fixing the yield was a scientific job best left to experts.
The court held that it lacked expertise on the subject and would not interfere with the fixing of yield.
In view of the discussions, the court found no merit in the PIL and dismissed it, along with the pending applications.
The post appeared first on .