IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3557 of 2010(T)
1. K.JAYAKUMAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF
... Respondent
2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
3. THE RANGE OFFICER,
4. THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.D.SAJEEV
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :10/06/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.3557 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner runs a wood based industry, which according to the
respondents is within 5 k.m. from the edge of the forest. Petitioner
has now been directed to stop the business, in view of the fact that
petitioner does not have a valid NOC from the empowering committee.
According to the petitioner, petitioner has already submitted an
application for renewal of NOC, without considering which, the
respondents are forcing the petitioner to close the saw mill. Petitioner
therefore seeks the following reliefs:
“i) To call for the records which may leads to the issuance of
Ext.P14 order by the 4th respondent and quash the same as
illegal, arbitrary and is one issued without any application of
mind after issuing a writ of certiorari or other writ direction or
orders.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
direction or order, commanding the first respondent to consider
and pass orders in Ext.P15 application for grant of NOC to the
wood based industry of the petitioner after complying with the
mandates contained in Exts.P4, P9 and P10 judgments of this
Honourable Court, for the forthcoming years as expeditiously
as possible.
Iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or
direction, commanding the 4th respondent not to implement or
proceed with Ext.P14 order till the first respondent consider
and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P15 application for grant of
NOC filed by the petitioner.
iv) Such other appropriate writ order or direction this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.
2. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that
petitioner has been running the saw mill for sometime without a valid
W.P.(C).No.3557 of 2010 2
NOC and he is not entitled to continue the same. But he admits the
fact that the petitioner had submitted an application for renewal of
NOC and the same has not yet been disposed of. I am of the opinion
that without first passing orders on the application for renewal of NOC,
it is unjust for the respondents to take coercive action against
petitioner to stop the business.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with
a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the functioning of
the saw mill until application for renewal of NOC filed by the petitioner
is disposed by the appropriate authority.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
cms