Disposed

Abdurasak v. Areacode Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC3 Feb 2009WP(C)/3519/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Chief Forest Conservator Committee to consider the petitioner's application for a No Objection Certificate expeditiously, awarding a one-month timeline for a decision, while halting threat of mill closure pending this.

What did the court decide?

Directive to the 2nd respondent to consider the NOC application and decide within one month. Stay on coercive action pending the NOC.

Abdurasak Vs Areacode Grama Panchayath — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 3519 of 2009(R)

¶6

---------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

---------------

¶9

ABDURASAK PROPRIETOR, KANJIRALA WOOD INDUSTRIES KANJIRALA, THAZHATHANGADIYIL,AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DIST.

¶10

BY MR.SRINATH GIRISH ADV.

¶11

MR.E.NARAYANAN- ADV.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

--------------------

¶14

1. THE AREACODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DT.

¶15

2. THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR SPECIAL AFFORESTATION) CONVENOR, STATE EMPOWERED COMMITTEE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.R. SABU

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶19

W.P.(C)No.3519 OF 2009

¶20

Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2009

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner is conducting a saw mill. Since it is within five kilometres from the Forest, the petitioner is obliged to produce a

¶23

No Objection Certificate from the Forest Department. The petitioner originally obtained one and on the strength of the same, the Panchayat had issued a licence, which was renewed from time to time. The renewed licence was valid upto February, 2008. The petitioner filed an application for NOC before the 2^nd respondent, which is produced as Ext.P6 to enable him to apply for renewal of licence. That was on 8.9.2008. The 2^nd respondent has not considered it yet. In the meanwhile, the 1^st respondent is threatening the petitioner with closure of the saw mill on the ground that he has not produced the NOC from the 2^nd respondent. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶24

W.P.(c)No.3519/09

¶25

¶26

“a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction, directing the 1st respondent to keep all coercive action against the petitioner's unit in pursuance of Ext.P5 and P8 in abeyance until the 2nd respondent hears and disposes of Ext.P6 application and issues NoObjection Certificate to the petitioner and the petitioner is able to apply for licence;

¶27

b) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction, directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders in Ext.P6 application and issue No-Objection Certificate to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible”.

¶28

I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

¶29

In the nature of the order I propose to pass I do not propose to issue notice to the 1^st respondent at this juncture. When the petitioner has submitted an application for NOC, the Committee competent to consider the same had a duty to consider and pass orders on the same expeditiously.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2^nd respondent is the Convenor of the Committee.

¶31

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to place Ext.P6 application before the Committee and the Committee shall take a decision on the application for NOC submitted by the

¶32

W.P.(c)No.3519/09

¶33

¶34

petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶36

Acd

Abdurasak v. Areacode Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdurasak v. Areacode Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Jayan Vs Vijayalekshmi

Sudhakumari.R. Vs Union of India

T.N.Geetha Vs State Ofkerala

M.Kamalakshy Amma, Vs Kalamassery Municipality

Cochin Kagaz Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Latha Sugathan Vs Asuntha Mohan