High Court Kerala High Court

P.K.Ummer Kutty … vs The Divisional Forest Officer on 13 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
P.K.Ummer Kutty … vs The Divisional Forest Officer on 13 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23178 of 2009(N)


1. P.K.UMMER KUTTY HAJI(PROPRIETOR)
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :13/01/2010

 O R D E R
                 T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
               ---------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C) No.23178 OF 2009
               ---------------------------------------
           Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010.


                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner herein is the proprietor of the Industrial Unit

called M/s.Mailatty Wood Industries in Kasaragod District. It is a

wood based unit and the averments regarding the manufacturing

process is that the unit is producing Plywood and Block boards.

It is claimed that the unit is functioning from 1995 onwards. The

No Objection Certificate for the time was being renewed from

time to time and Exhibit P1 is the order renewing the NOC dated

02.01.2002.

2. The petitioner had purchased the unit as per Exhibit P2

dated 10.07.2007. The petitioner seeks for transferring the NOC

issued by the Forest Department in the name of the partnership

firm which is running the unit now. Seeking for appropriate

orders in the matter, this writ petition has been filed.

3. In the statement filed by the Forest Range Officer on

behalf of the 1st respondent it is pointed out that the Divisional

W.P.(C) No.23178/2009 2

Forest Officer is not an authorized officer to issue NOC. In the

light of the directions issued by the Apex Court, only the State

Level Committee constituted by the Central Empowered

Committee can go into the matter. In these circumstances, the

petitioner has filed Exhibit P8 before the additional

3rd respondent.

There will be a direction to the additional 3rd respondent to

process Exhibit P8 and appropriate decision will be taken within a

period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE

smp