Kerala High Court
V.O Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 27 February, 1987
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY,THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/2ND ASWINA, 1935
WP(C).No. 23318 of 2013 (L)
---------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
V.O JOSEPH,
VALAYANATTU HOUSE, NELLICKAMON P.O - 689 680, RANNI,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA.
BY ADVS.SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS
SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER
SRI.SHAFFIE THOMAS
SMT.JANCY ALEX
SRI. SANEESH KUNJUNJH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHEIF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACADU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.
3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, RANNI,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-680 672, KERALA.
BY SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY, SPL. GOVT. PLEADER FOR FOREST
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 23318 of 2013 (L)
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHAYATH LICENCE ISSUED ON 22/4/1986.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE SSI REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
NO.09/13/00879/PMT/SSI DATED 27/2/1987.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FACTORIES AND
BOILERS CERTIFICATE DATED 28/11/1988.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/1/2005 IN WA NO.1593/1999.
EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 22.12.2009 ISSUED TO ONE OF THE
SAW MILL OWNERS.
EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.C2.3688/11 DATED 22/7/201
ISSUED BY RANNI-ANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.R-5643/12 DATED 13/8/2013 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/9/2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S.TO JUDGE
PJ
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C)No. 23318 OF 2013
.........................................................................
Dated this the 24th September, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
"i) to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records in the case and quash Exhibit P7 notice and all further proceedings thereon;
ii) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue with the operation of the saw mill without unnecessary intervention from the side of respondents.
iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to issue necessary licences to the petitioner's saw mill and to permit the operation of the same;
iv) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to consider Exhibit P8 representation and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law;
v) to issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the case; and W.P.(C)No. 23318 OF 2013 2
vi) to award the cost of petition."
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running a Saw Mill since 1986-87, with 20HP motor installed therein. Thereafter, yet another machine having the capacity of 20HP motor was installed in the year 2001-2002 and was operating the Unit as above. By virtue of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (2002) 9 SCC 502), necessary NOC had to be obtained from the State Empowered Committee. But on clarifying the said verdict, the units which were already in existence prior to the cut off date were permitted to continue. Hence, the petitioner was entitled to have the benefit of the said verdict and was pursuing the operation as above, all throughout.
3. In the meanwhile, relevant rules were framed by the State, by virtue of which, the authority to issue NOC came to be vested upon the third respondent. In the said circumstance, the application already preferred by the petitioner before the second respondent for granting NOC came to be transferred to the third respondent for consideration. Referring to the application dated W.P.(C)No. 23318 OF 2013 3 23.06.2010 preferred by the petitioner and the verification report dated 26.04.2011, the third respondent issued Ext.P7 notice dated 13.08.2013, observing that the petitioner was having licence to run the Saw Mill with the capacity of 20HP motor prior to 30.10.2002 and that the petitioner had installed a 'Band Saw' thereafter, thus requiring the petitioner to dismantle the said 'Band Saw' and to report compliance, lest coercive proceedings should be initiated for cancelling the licence. Immediately on receipt of Ext.P7, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 pointing out the facts and figures as to the existence of the Unit with the installed Machines even much prior to 30.10.2002. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is without any regard to the actual facts and figures, that the respondents are proceeding with further steps for causing cancellation of the licence granted to the petitioner, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
5. Considering the pleadings and materials on record, this Court finds that the matter requires to be considered by the third W.P.(C)No. 23318 OF 2013 4 respondent with reference to the documents to be produced by the petitioner in support of the contentions. In the said circumstance, the third respondent is directed to consider Ext.8 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Implementation of Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance till such time. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the third respondent for further steps.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk