Kerala High Court
K.P.Noushad vs State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2012
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur, K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2013/1ST BHADRA, 1935
WA.No. 533 of 2013 () IN WP(C).20052/2012
-------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20052/2012 DATED 08-11-2012
APPELLANT:
-------------
K.P.NOUSHAD, AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.KOYAMOOTTY, KONDESHAMPARAMBIL, KONDOTTY P.O.
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673638.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
SRI.S.SUJIN
RESPONDENTS:
----------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
FOREST & WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695001.
2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
NORTH WYANAD DIVISION, MANANTHAWADY, WYANAD-670645.
3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
NILAMBUR NORTH DIVISION, NILAMBUR-679329.
R1 -R 3 BY SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY, SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR
FOREST DEPARTMENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-08-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
W.A.NO.533 OF 2013
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE AI:TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 05.01.2013.
ANNEXURE A2:TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 10.02.2013
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J.
&
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.A.No.533 of 2013
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2013
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur,CJ Appellant is before us in a second round of litigation. On earlier occasion he approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.26513 of 2009 and the judgment came to be passed as per Ext.P3. It came to be confirmed in Writ Appeal No.2738 of 2009 as also in Review Petition, which are at Exts.P4 and P4A. A Special Leave Petition came to be filed by the State in S.L.P(C) No.15423 of 2010 which came to be dismissed as per Ext.P6 order dated 10.05.2010.
2. In the earlier round of litigation, writ of mandamus was sought directing the respondent authorities to issue a No Objection Certificate in order to enable him to commence running of the saw mill, in the alternative he sought for a direction to consider Ext.P5 application and pass orders within a W.A.No.533 of 2013 2 time limit to be fixed by the Court. The entire litigation ended in favour of the appellant herein. What is relevant is, subsequent to the disposal of the S.L.P, Ext.P1 impugned order came to be passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, the 2nd respondent herein cancelling the No Objection Certificate issued to the petitioner. According to the appellant-writ petitioner, this is in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to him and is vitiated by principles of res judicata, especially in the light of the earlier litigation ending in his favour.
3. According to the State, subsequent to disposal of SLP, one Mr.Dileep Poolakkot filed I.A.Nos.3051 to 3053 of 2011 before the Apex Court complaining that in spite of directions of the Apex Court in T.N.Godhavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and others [(2002)10 SCC 606], State of Kerala had not framed rules and had not taken steps in accordance with the directions issued in the judgment of the Apex Court dated 30.10.2002. Factually no one can dispute the fact that the above Interlocutory Application came to be filed subsequent to the disposal of the S.L.P. pertaining to earlier round of litigation at W.A.No.533 of 2013 3 the instance of the State concerning appellant/writ petitioner. In pursuance of directions by the Apex Court in Godhavarman's case, Central Empowered Committee had submitted a report wherein reference is made to the saw mill of the present appellant Mr.K.P.Noushad which is at Ext.P7 placed on record by the State and paragraph iii refers to the case of Mr.K.P.Noushad which reads as under:-
'iii) Mr.K.P.Noushad was issued "No Objection Certificate"
dated 28.11.2002 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nilambur South Division for establishment of a saw mill and furniture unit and which was issued in violation of this Hon'ble Court's order dated 30.10.2002 i.e. without obtaining prior permission from the CEC. The "No Objection Certificate" was issued even though the proposed wood based unit was not in his jurisdiction and falls within the jurisdiction of Divisional Forest Officer, Nilambur, North Division. It was after 5 years that the said "No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Divisional forest Officer, Nilambur South Division was cancelled vide order dated 11.9.2007 as the NOC was found to have been issued in violation of this Hon'ble Court's order dated 30.10.2002. In spite of the cancellation of the "No Objection Certificate" the same was renewed by the Divisional Forest Officer, North Nilambur vide order dated 30.8.2008.
W.A.No.533 of 2013 4
The Divisional Forest Officer, North Nilambur Division vide his letter dated 12.2.2009 permitted the said wood based industry to relocate in Taluk Mananthavady, District Wayanad and falling in the jurisdiction of the Divisional Forest Officer, North Wayanad Division (Refer Annexure A/12 of the IA). The renewal of the NOC as well as the permission granted for the relocation of the said unit were granted in violation of this Hon'ble Court's order dated 30.10.2002 and in spite of the original NOC already having been cancelled as it was issued in violation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 30.10.2002.
Mr.K.P.Naushad, after relocating the wood based units, filed Writ Petition (C) No.26513 of 2009 on 17.9.2009 before the Hon'ble High Court seeking issue of the NOC by the Divisional Forest Officer, North Wayanad Division for operating the unit at the new site. In the counter affidavit dated 16.10.2009 filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, North Wayanad Division, it was not disclosed that the NOC issued in favour of Mr.K.P.Noushad has already been cancelled by the issuing authority itself as it was found to have been issued in violation of this Hon'ble Court's order dated 30.10.2002 (refer Annexure A/16 of the IA). Instead in the said counter affidavit it was stated that the NOC was not being issued because one Mr.K.J.Joseph has complained that the location of the saw mill is within 5 kms from the nearby forest. This resulted in the Hon'ble High Court passing the judgment dated 22.10.2009 wherein the W.A.No.533 of 2013 5 Forest Department was directed to issue the NOC within one month if the Petitioner Saw Mill satisfies the relocation. Moreover, the issue of the NOC, the renewal of the NOC as well as the NOC granted for relocation were illegal and in flagrant violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court."
4. It is also relevant to mention the recommendations made by the Committee for consideration of the Apex Court in the pending matter that is Godavarman's case, which read as under:-
"i. the State of Kerala may be directed to immediately within one month notify the Kerala Forest (Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills and other Wood Based Industrial Units) Rule, 2011 for which the concurrence has already been given by the CEC on 4th July, 2011.
ii) the NOCs issued by the concerned officers of the Forest Department should be reviewed in a time bound manner by the SLC and the NOCs found to have been issued in violation of this Hon'ble Court's order dated 30.10.2002 should be immediately cancelled. Such wood based industries as well as the units working without a valid NOC and/ or licence issued by the competent authority should be closed immediately; and
iii) the assessment of the timber availability from all W.A.No.533 of 2013 6 sources qua the requirement of the existing legal units should be expedited. Till then, no NOC/licence for the wood based industries should be issued except for (a) secondary wood based industries such as furniture making units not involved in sawing of round timber(b) units based exclusively on rubber and (c) units established prior to 30.10.2002 and with valid NOC/licence. For the units falling in the above said sub category (a) to (c) also, the NOC/licence should be issued by the concerned officers of the Forest Department only after first obtaining the approval of the State Level Committee for the wood based industries in Kerala."
5. It is not even disputed by the leaned counsel for of the appellant that Ext.P1 impugned order is based on the directions of the Apex Court on the interlocutory application filed by Mr.Dileep as referred to above. The entire issue is whether the Central Empowered Committee's report which came up for consideration before the Apex Court should be the guiding factor or not, while considering the issuance or continuance of the licence or No Objection Certificate issued to the wood based industries.
6. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is, in the light of finality, so far as his case is W.A.No.533 of 2013 7 concerned, in the earlier round of litigation, there was no justification for the authorities to cancel, by the impugned order, Ext.P1 No Objection Certificate already granted, as it would amount of res judicata. So far as violation of principles of res judicata, the narration of sequence of events stated above clearly indicates, Central Empowered Committee's report came into existence only subsequent to the disposal of the SLP in the earlier round of litigation. This report came up for consideration before the Apex Court on the application of one Mr.Dileep in Godhavarman's case. This complaint of Mr.Dileep was only with regard to the situation pertaining to wood based industries in the State of Kerala and the entire concentration was with regard to the State of Kerala in particular but all other states in general. Therefore, it is mandatory on the authorities which consider the applications to follow the directions of Apex Court and dispose of the applications or consider continuance of "No Objection Certificates" in the light of Central Empowered Committee's recommendations.
7. It is also not in dispute, in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee, State of Kerala has framed W.A.No.533 of 2013 8 rules in 2012 and cancellation of No Objection Certificate issued against the appellant was with reference to recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee based on factual situation. Central Empowered Committee's report was never the basis for consideration of earlier litigation. In other words, it was not an issue before the Courts up to Apex Court. In the context of Central Empowered Committee's report and the recommendations therein, being not the subject matter of the litigations in the earlier round of litigation, we fail to understand how the present cancellation of No Objection Certificate would be hit by principle of res judicata. Considering the relevant facts referred to in Ext.P1 with reference to Central Empowered Committee's report and the recommendations, we are of the opinion, there is no justification for the appellant to contend that the respondent authorities have no power to reopen the issue and cancel the No Objection Certificate already issued. It is very much within their jurisdiction to cancel No Objection Certificate or consent earlier given if there is violation of any of the recommendations of Central Empowered Committee and also the rules framed by the State of Kerala in this regard. In fact it W.A.No.533 of 2013 9 is mandatory since it is the bounden duty of the authorities under the State to give effect to the directions of the Supreme Court.
8. We place reliance on; so far as res judicata issue, the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Ramesh Gandhi [(2012)1 SCC 476]. Paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 are relevant, which read as under:-
"20. We have meticulously examined the judgment of this Court dated 18.03.1997. The entire controversy in the said judgment revolved only around the authority of the Coal Controller to issue the various directions such as were given by him on 24.4.1994. On an examination of the relevant provisions of law, this Court no doubt held that the Coal Controller was legally competent to issue the said directions. That the private company had already committed breach of contractual obligations arising under the two contracts was not at issue. There is no discussion in that regard in the said judgment.
21. Whether the private company failed to comply with the legal obligations arising out of the contracts entered into by it with Coal India or its subsidiaries, depends on the proof of the facts allegedly constituting the acts or omissions amounting to the breach of the contracts on the part of the private company. To arrive at any conclusion on the above question, it W.A.No.533 of 2013 10 requires a detailed examination of the relevant material. The fact that the supplies of coal were made to the private company pursuant to the orders of the Calcutta High Court and confirmed by this Court by itself does not rule out the possibility of a crime having been committed.
22. It is well known that decisions are rendered by courts on the basis of the facts pleaded before them and the issues arising out of those pleaded facts. As we have already pointed out, the only issue projected on the basis of the facts placed before the Calcutta High Court and this Court is the competence of the Coal Controller to give directions which in substance amounted to variation of the terms of the contracts to which the private company and Coal India Ltd. are parties. This Court in Coal India Ltd.v.Continental Transport and Construction Corpn. declared that the Coal Controller had the requisite legal authority to give such directions but did not examine any other issue."
9. The earlier litigation initiated by the appellant went in his favour, on this Court finding bad the refusal of the State to grant 'No Objection Certificate' on the ground that the land to which the mill was sought to be shifted was part of reserve forest. The issue of sanction by Central Empowered Committee as per the directions of the Supreme Court was never considered in the earlier round of litigation.
W.A.No.533 of 2013 11
Then coming to the argument of violation of principles of natural justice, in view of the above discussion, it would only become a formality. Therefore, we are of the opinion that none of the grounds raised by the appellant are sustainable to differ from the opinion of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE sj24/8