IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1904 of 2010()
1. A.M.VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR
3. THE STATE LEVAL COMMITTEE FOR WOOD
4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :12/01/2011
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
W.A. No. 1904 of 2010
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
Basheer, J.
Appellant is stated to be the proprietor of M/s.
Niravath Industries, a wood based industrial unit, at
Kattappana Mini Industrial Estate.
2. The specific case of the appellant is that he has
been conducting the above industrial unit and sawmill
attached thereto ever since 1979, after obtaining requisite
licence, permit etc. from the authorities concerned.
According to him, Ext.P11 notice issued by the Range
Officer, Ayyappancoil way back in January 1999 will
substantiate and fortify his case that the sawmill has been
in existence for the last several years.
3. Any how we do not propose to refer to the various
road blocks that the appellant faced during the last few
years and also to the several rounds of litigation that
followed, in view of the order that we propose to pass.
W.P.(C) No. 1904/2010 2
4. It is on record that by Ext.P2 judgment dated
December 16,2005 in O.P. No.3427 of 1999 a learned Single
Judge of this Court quashed the order of Forest Department
directing the appellant to close down the sawmill. However
it was made clear that the Forest Department would be at
liberty to take action against the appellant in case he was
involved in any forest offence.
5. It is beyond controversy that by order dated
December 14, 2009 the Divisional Forest Officer, Kottayam
cancelled the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of
the appellant to run a sawmill on the ground that it had
been issued “erroneous ly and inadvertently” relying on a
certificate issued by the Panchayat.
6. The above order (Ext.P3) was challenged before
this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. A learned Single Judge dismissed the
writ petition, against which the appellant preferred W.A.
No.135 of 2010. A Division Bench of this Court, by judgment
dated January 27, 2010 relegated the appellant to the State
Level Committee for wood based industries in Kerala to
W.P.(C) No. 1904/2010 3
work out his remedies. It was however directed that status
quo as on the date of the judgment shall be maintained till
orders were passed by the committee on the interim
application that may be filed by the appellant.
7. It is seen from the records that the appellant had
filed an application for grant of No Objection Certificate
before the State Level Committee as early as on December
31, 2009. An interlocutory application was also filed by the
appellant seeking permission to continue to operate the unit
and sawmill. However, the committee rejected the prayer
for interim relief by its order dated August 20, 2010, a copy
of which is on record as Ext.P17.
8. The said interim order passed by the committee
was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single
Judge, who by the impugned judgment held that the
decision taken by the Committee did not appear to be
faulty, warranting any interference. But it was observed by
the learned Single Judge that if the appellant possessed the
requisite licence to run the furniture unit, it would be open
to him to approach the Divisional Forest Officer, Kottayam
W.P.(C) No. 1904/2010 4
to allow him to operate the same and the officer was
directed to pass appropriate orders on such request in
accordance with law. The above judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge is impugned in this appeal .
9. We have heard Sri. George Poonthottam learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri. P.M. Poulose learned
Special Government Pleader (Forest). We have perused the
materials available on record.
10. Having regard to the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it will be
appropriate at this juncture to direct respondent No.3, the
State Level Committee to take a final decision on the
application submitted by the appellant for grant of No
Objection Certificate, particularly since the said application
has been pending consideration before the Committee for
more than one year.
11. Learned Special Government Pleader submits that
an appropriate decision in the matter will be taken without
any further delay.
12. In that view of the matter, the Committee is
W.P.(C) No. 1904/2010 5
directed to take a final decision in the matter, as
expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The
committee shall ensure that the appellant is afforded
sufficient opportunity to be heard before any orders are
passed. It will be open to the appellant to produce
additional documents in support of his case.
13. It is made clear that the Committee shall take a
decision in the matter untrammelled and uninfluenced by
any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in
the impugned judgment. We make it further clear that we
have not considered the merit or demerit of the case.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
mn.