IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36472 of 2009(D)
1. K.NEELAKANTAN, AGED 64 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE CUSTODIAN AND CONSERVATOR OF VESTED
For Petitioner :SRI.B.S.SIVAJI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :24/05/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.36472 of 2009-D
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010.
Judgment
1.The petitioner obtained Ext.P1, an order under
Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting
and Assignment) Act, 1971 from the Forest
Tribunal, Palakkad. The State of Kerala and the
Custodian were the respondents. The parties are
bound by that judicial order. Respondents carried
an appeal to this Court. That was dismissed as
per Ext.P2 judgment. Obviously, therefore, the
respondents have to give effect to the decision
contained in Ext.P1 whereby the petitioner is
found entitled to be in possession of the
property in question.
2.The petitioner complains that in spite of
repeated requests and representations, the
respondents have not given effect to the decision
contained in Ext.P1, as affirmed as per Ext.P2.
WPC36472/09 -: 2 :-
This is nothing but clear negation of justice and
infraction of rule of law. If there is any
dispute between the State and the Custodian on
the one hand and the petitioner on the other, as
to the identity of the property that is covered
by Ext.P1, either of the parties can bring that
issue to the notice of the Forest Tribunal since
that Tribunal would be the best authority to
decide on the identity of the property covered by
Ext.P1.
3.However, learned Special Government Pleader for
Forests states that in the meanwhile, Kerala
Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically
Fragile Land) Act, 2003 came into force and that
the land in question is one that would fall under
that Act. He says that on coming into force of
that legislation, the petitioner ceases his
entitlement to have the land because it is one
that would be covered by that statute.
4.But, the petitioner is entitled to require the
WPC36472/09 -: 3 :-
respondents to give effect to Ext.P1. In taking a
decision as to whether the respondents will give
effect to or not, they render administrative or
quasi judicial decision. The respondents are
public authorities. Therefore, even by virtue of
Section 4(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act,
2005, the respondents are bound to give the
petitioner the reason, if any, as to why they
would not give effect to Ext.P1 order issued
under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and
Assignment) Act. If the reason of the respondents
is referable to the Kerala Forests (Vesting and
Management of Ecologically Fragile Land) Act,
that has to be clearly stated and a decision
taken and communicated to the petitioner. No
citizen can be forced to run from pillar to post
even without being told a firm decision and the
reason for that decision. The executive
establishment of a democratic Republic cannot
make oral decisions. It has to record its
decision on files and communicate it in writing
to the concerned.
WPC36472/09 -: 4 :-
In the aforesaid situation, the second respondent
is directed to take up Ext.P1 and comply with it
or issue a decision as to why Exts.P1 and P2 are
not being complied with. If decision with reasons
to that effect is not communicated to the
petitioner within two months from now, he will be
treated as eligible for restoration without
reference to the provisions of Kerala Forests
(Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile
Land) Act and the respondents will put the
petitioner in possession of the property covered
by Ext.P1 within one month therefrom. All issues
on merits are left open. The writ petition
ordered accordingly.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/0506