IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 372 of 2008()
1. E.MOIDU, S/O.THARJAVI, AGED 51 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KOTTATHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent
2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
3. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.A.K.SRINIVASAN
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :04/02/2009
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY,Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J
--------------------------------
W.A.372/2008
--------------------------------
Dated this 4th day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
Koshy (Ag.C.J.)
The appellant is the proprietor of a saw mill by
Name Pullikkunnu Wood Industries, situated within the
area of the first respondent Panchayat. He applied for a
licence to run a saw mill. As per the directions of the
Panchayat, appellant submitted an application before the
DFO, the second respondent, for issuance of an NOC for
establishment of the saw mill, and DFO, as per Ext.P1
order dated 7.11.1996 issued NOC to the appellant. DFO
conducted an inspection of the site and found that the
proposed site is within 5 Kms from the nearest forest
area. The District Medical Officer approved the site plan
for installation of 65 HP electric motor with certain
conditions. On the basis of the above, Ext.P3 licence was
issued. Thereafter year to year, licence was renewed till
31.3.2006. On 17.7.2006, petitioner applied for renewal
of licence and that was rejected by the Panchayat stating
that the petitioner was given permission for the
installation of a 25 HP motor and not 65 HP motor, as
W.A.372/2008
2
evidenced by Ext.P4. But according to the petitioner,
Ext.P2 itself is in respect of 65 HP motor. Ext.P6
communication was thereafter, issued to the petitioner
asking him to produce a fresh NOC in order to renew the
licence, followed by Ext.P7.
2. Panchayat has taken a contention that since the
licnece was not renewed in time, it cane be taken only as
a fresh licence and for issuing fresh licence, NOC is
required.
3. Learned Government Pleader submits that as per
the directions dated 23.5.2008, DFO has no power to
issue such an NOC, but that itself shows that such an
NOC is not necessary for the licence issued prior to
30.10.2002. The licence of the petitioner was admittedly
issued prior to 30.12.2002. The learned single Judge
came to the conclusion that the application for renewal
of licence was submitted after the prescribed period and
so that it could be considered as a fresh application and
in that view of the matter, petitioner has to obtain a
fresh NOC from the Central Empowered Committee and
W.A.372/2008
3
that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in
T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India
& Others (AIR 1997 SC, 1228), belated applications
cannot be renewed. The Forest officials also took the
stand that since the application was not filed within time,
it can be treated as a fresh licence as if there is no
provision in the Panchayat Raj Act or Rules for belated
applications. Rule 19 of the “The Kerala Panchayat Raj
(Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades
and Factories) Rules, 1996, reads as follows:-
Additional Fee – The maximum fee
specified in Schedule III appended to these
rules shall be applicable only for the
application submitted in due time. In the
case of belated applications, an additional
fee of 25 per cent of the fee for licence
payable under the schedule may be
charged.
4. In the case of belated application, petitioner shall
pay an additional fee of 25% of the fee for licence and
that is payable under the schedule. Here the mill was
running before 30.10.2002 as can be seen from Ext.P3
W.A.372/2008
4
series of licences. It was running upto 2002, without
any complaint. There is no forest offences against the
petitioner during this period. Department also has not
insisted for renewal of licences for the industries which
was established before 30.10.2002. petitioner was also
not asked to produce fresh NOC. Fresh NOC was
necessary only if it is for a fresh licence. We are of the
view that it is only an application for renewal of licence.
In the above circumstances, petitioner’s application
should be treated as for renewal of licence and the same
should be renewed after collecting the required fees
from time to time and for the belated application,
belated fees, as mentioned under Rule 19, shall be paid.
Forest officials to ensure that no forest offences are
committed by the appellant.
Writ appeal is allowed as above.
J.B.KOSHY,
Acting Chief Justice
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs