L. Narayana Swamy, J.

1. This review petition has been taken up for hearing without removing the objections by the State.

2. The review petition has been filed by the State for review of order dated 20th April, 2021, passed in CWPIL No.45 of 2018, wherein this Court found, on the basis of correspondence that the officers/officials who worked at that relevant point of time are also responsible for illegal felling of trees which caused loss to the tune of Rs.34,68,233/- to the State and has to be recovered from the concerned officers/officials. It was also directed that the entry in the service record of the concerned officers/officials be incorporated reflecting therein that they have failed to discharge their duties.

3. The submission of the learned Advocate General is that the proceeding initiated in this public interest litigation is contrary to the Himachal Pradesh High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010. As per the said Rules, the complainant or the petitioner, who is a private person, has to file an affidavit which has to be examined, but in the instant case no such affidavit has been filed. As far as the person, who has made the compliant to this Court with regard to illegal felling of trees is concerned, he has a history of filing similar litigations and one such petition i.e. CMP No.14154 of 2019 in COPC No.49 of 2019 was dismissed on 9th January, 2020 by this Court with costs of Rs.50,000/-, which clearly shows that the complainant/petitioner is in the habit of filing frivolous petitions and on this ground also the order passed by this Court requires to be reviewed.

4. With regard to filing of review petition, the learned Advocate General relied upon para-24 of the judgment passed by this Court in The Nalagarh Dehati Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. Vs. Beli Ram etc., reported in 1980 SCC Online HP 13. He has also relied upon paragraphs 17 to 19 of another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asif Hameed and others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & others and connected matters, reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364 and submits that it is for the Government to look into the affairs and the Court cannot interfere in the executive field. He further submits that with regard to the committed offence, the Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh was directed to file an affidavit, which was examined and accepted by this Court with a direction that the criminal as well as departmental action initiated against the erring officials be expedited and status report be filed with regard to the conclusion of enquiry. Similarly, the Investigating Officer in FIR No.0099 dated 31st May, 2018 was also directed to expedite the investigation and submit the final report. It is submitted that the affidavit has been filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh to the effect that the officials/officers have not committed any offence and the persons who have committed the offence, criminal and civil cases have been filed against them. Once, the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh is accepted by this Court vide its order dated 3 rd January, 2019, then, it is not appropriate for this Court to again go into the matter to hold the responsibility for the purpose of offence. Hence, the learned Advocate General prays that the review petition be allowed and the order passed by this Court be recalled.

5. On the other hand, learned Amicus Curiae relied upon paragraph 24 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sub-Inspector Roop Lal and another vs. LT. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and others, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 644 . He also relied upon paragraphs 26 and 36 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheela Barse vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1988 (4) SCC 226 and submits that the instant public interest litigation has been instituted by this Court and in no way the respondent-State has been directed to pay the loss. Since no adverse orders have been passed against the respondent-State, this review petition should not have been filed. The basic ground is that unless and until the error apparent on the face of record is not found, the review petition is to be dismissed. The public interest litigation has been filed with reference to illegal felling of 416 trees as per the record of the Government, which caused loss to the tune of Rs.34,68,233/- not to the State but to the entire planet and the list of officials which has been furnished by the State has been examined by this Court and held the said officials/officers responsible. Before passing the final order with reference to damage or compensation, this Court directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh to communicate the order to the erring officers/officials enabling them to make submission with regard to the observations made by this Court. When such opportunity has been given by this Court, no further opportunity is required to be granted by the department.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned Amicus Curiae has rightly submitted that there is no adverse directions or observations made against the respondent-State and the respondent-State is the custodian of entire record and they should have provided all materials in this regard. When there is a failure on the part of the respondent-State, it is appropriate for us to see the loss caused to the environment and also to the State, which has to be recovered from the erring officials/officers. The order passed by this Court on 03.01.2019 by accepting the affidavit of the Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh, in no way detained this Court for proceeding further with the public interest litigation. On the basis of the affidavit that civil and criminal cases have been filed against the erring officials, we had directed to expedite the proceedings. Lastly, while considering the review, the error apparent on the face of the record is of paramount importance. The observation made in the order is purely against the private persons and it is not for the State to protect the officials/officers in case they have committed the offence. In support of our observations, we place reliance on paragraph 24 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sub-Inspector Roop Lal and another vs. LT. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and others, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 644. Paragraph 24 of the judgment reads as under:

“24. Before concluding, we are constrained to observe that the role played by the respondents in this litigation is far from satisfactory. In our opinion, after laying down appropriate rules governing the service conditions of its employees, a State should only play the role of an impartial employer in the inter se dispute between its employees. If any such dispute arises, the State should apply the rules laid down by it fairly. Still if the matter is dragged to a judicial forum, the State should confine its role to that of an amicus curiae by assisting the judicial forum to arrive at a correct decision. Once a decision is rendered by a judicial forum, thereafter the State should be left to the parties concerned to agitate further, if they so desire. When a State, after the judicial forum delivers a judgment, files review petition, appeal etc. it gives an impression that it is espousing the cause of a particular group of employees against another group of its own employees, unless of course there are compelling reasons to resort to such further proceedings. In the instant case, we feel the respondent has taken more than necessary interest which is uncalled for. This act of the State has only resulted in waste of time and money of all concerned.”

7. The State should represent the Government and not a group of officials, especially when there is strong observations made against these officials. Instead of filing a review petition, the State should have taken serious steps against these officials. Therefore, we hold that the respondent-Government has not made a proper attempt in filing the review petition. Accordingly, we do not find any error apparent on the face of order dated 20th April, 2021. Hence, the review petition is dismissed.

8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.