Disposed

Mary Stella Bai v. the Chief Conservator of Forests

Kerala HC25 May 2012WP(C)/6242/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners operating a saw mill challenged a notice to close the unit for lack of NOC. The Court held that since the unit started prior to 2002 and the application is pending, the First Respondent must expedite the decision while the notice remains deferred.

What did the court decide?

Directed 1st Respondent to consider the pending NOC application expeditiously and communicated decision; Notice to close (Ext.P14) deferred during pendency.

Mary Stella Bai Vs the Chief Conservator of Forests — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2012/4TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6242 of 2012 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. MARY STELLA BAI, AGED 76 YEARS T.C.5/132,133, PEROORKADA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.

¶8

2. MARY BINDU.S

¶9

W/O.SAJITH BABU, M/S.BINDU SAW MILL, PEROORKADA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶11

SRI.M.S.KALESH

¶12

SMT.A.V.PRIYA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (SPECIAL AFFORESTATION) & NODAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.

¶15

2. CITY CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶16

3. HEALTH SUPERVISOR CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SC FOR CORPN. BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WPC NO.6242/12

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE-FEE PAYMENT-CHALLAN, ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 16.3.1977.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF INVOICE ISSUED BY M/S KERAL ALLOYS PVT. LTD., FOR THE PURCHASE OF A RESAW MACHINE, DATED 1.12.1976, ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF POWER-ALLOCATION DATED 17.12.1977 , ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, T.E.S.(N) SUBDIVISION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4: THE TRUE COPY OF LICENCE-FEE CHALLAN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OPEN-SHED FOR FACILITATING THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SAW MILL, ISSUED BY THE CORPORTION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 8.1.1976.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 16.2.1977 FOR THE SAID BUILDING BEARING CONSUMER NO.180 SITUATED IN THE BUILDING.

¶28

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.16/2003, DATED 1.1.2003, OF PATTOM SRO.

¶29

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFOR ETHE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 3.5.2011.

¶30

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION.

¶31

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED CONSENT FROM THEKERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DATED 17.1.2012.

¶32

EXHIBIT P10: THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS, IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND PETITIONER, FOR RUNNING THE SAW MILL, IN HER NAME, VALID UPTO 31.12.2015.

¶33

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT-LETTER DATED 27-3-2010.

¶34

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P13: THE LICENCE ISSUED by the DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS, IN THENAME OF THE 2ND PETITIONER, FOR RUNNING THE SAW MILL, IN HER NAME, VALID UPTO 31.12.2015.

¶36

EXHIBIT P14: TRUE OCPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 3.2.2012.

¶37

EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 15.3.2011.

//True Copy//

PA to Judge

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 6242 OF 2012

¶42

===================

¶43

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2012

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent and the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

¶46

Petitioners are owners of a saw mill. They are aggrieved by Ext.P14 whereby the Corporation has called upon them to close down the saw mill on the ground that the petitioners have not obtained NOC from the 1^st respondent. The case of the petitioners is that they have already made Ext.P7 application for NOC and that orders thereon are awaited. The fact that an application has been made by the petitioners and that the same is being processed has been confirmed by the learned Government Pleader.

¶47

Thus, having regard to the fact that the unit is one which was started prior to 30/10/2002 and as the application made by the petitioners is pending, I am inclined to think that the 1^st respondent should pass orders on the NOC application made by the petitioners and until orders are so passed and the same is

¶48

WPC.No.6242/12

¶49

:2 :

¶50

communicated to the petitioners, status quo as on today should be allowed to continue.

¶51

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P7 application in accordance with law and pass orders thereon and communicate its decision to the petitioners. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible. It is directed that in the meanwhile, Ext.P14 will stand deferred.

¶52

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶53

Mary Stella Bai v. the Chief Conservator of Forests

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary Stella Bai v. the Chief Conservator of Forests

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

B.Balakrishnan Vs the Palakkad Municipality

M/S. Kerala State Construction Corporation Vs State of Kerala

C.a.Ibrahim Vs the Mangalpady Grama Panchayath

A.N.Ramachandran Vs Chottanikkara Gramapanchayath

Abdul Russak Vs Pathanamthitta Municipality and Another

C.K. Thankappan Vs the State of Kerala