The respondent was thus led to move the High Court of Bombay in writ proceedings, companytending mainly that the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was in fact meant to involve State Governments, or other authorities numberinated by them and that the Act was number meant to apply to Union territories as they themselves were governed by the central Government.
Since the area leased out to the respondent was within a Union Territory, the Collector apparently entertained the view that observance of the procedure under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, was number necessary, the administration being of the Central Government.
But the Conservator of Forests strongly held the opposite view and put to stop further activities of the respondent.
