Disposed

Chandy Joseph v. the Chief Conservator of Forests

Kerala HC15 Nov 2013WP(C)/10470/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a letter directing dismantlement of a saw mill. It held that the petitioner must approach the Divisional Forest Officer with necessary undertakings to regularize the dual operation issue within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the Divisional Forest Officer within two weeks with undertaking and affidavit for final disposal within one month.

Chandy Joseph Vs the Chief Conservator of Forests — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/24TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 10470 of 2011 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER:-

¶7

CHANDY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, KANJIRAKATTU KUNNEL HOUSE, MARIYAPURAM P.O., IDUKKI - 685 602.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:-

¶10

1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, (SPL.AFFORESTATION) & NODAL OFFICER, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001.

¶12

3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, AYYAPPANCOIL RANGE, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685 508.

¶13

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER. SMT.M.J.RAJASREE. BY SRI.M.P.PRAKASH,SPL.GP FOR FOREST

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶15

KKS

¶16

WPC.NO.10470/2011(G)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

EXIHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHAYAT LICENCE NO.B1 (31/10) 3905/10 DATED 20.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,MARIYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶20

EXHIBIT-P2. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.05.2010 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT,MARIYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P3. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE, DATED 11.01.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,MARIYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P4. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. L/2687 DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, IDUKKI.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P5. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/30-10-2002 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.202/95.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER FC-3-2137/09 DATED 04.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P7. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.08.2009 IN W.P.(C) NO.21800/2009.

¶26

EXHIBIT- P8. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.01.2011 IN W.P.(C)NO. 672/2011.

¶27

EXHIBIT- P9. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. FC4-2137/2009 DATED 21.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT- P10. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.03.2011 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

KKS

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶34

W.P.(C)No. 10470 OF 2011

¶35

Dated this the 15^th November m 2013

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶38

prayers:

¶39

“i) issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P9 and all proceedings pursuant thereto dismantle the 12.5 HP Re-Saw from the petitioner's wood based industry.

¶40

ii) issue a direction to the 1^st respondent to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence and personal hearing before taking any drastic decision on the petitioner's application for NOC.

¶41

iii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to use the 12.5 HP Re-Saw in the wood based industry

¶42

iv) restrain the respondents 2 and 3 from interfering in any manner with the petitioner's wood based industry.

¶43

v) issue such other writ, order or direction including interim orders as that are necessary in the circumstances of the case;

¶44

vi) allow that W.P.(C) with costs.

¶45

When the matter came up for consideration on

¶46

01.04.2011, 'status quo' was ordered to be maintained and it was

¶47

W.P.(C)No. 10470 OF 2011 2

¶48

extended until further orders on 24.05.2011. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of operation of law, particularly, under Rule 9 of the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Saw Mills and other wood based Industrial Units) Rules 2012 , the petitioner cannot operate the Saw Mill and the Furniture Unit in the same premises/location and that the petitioner is ready to relocate one of the units- Furniture Unit to some other premises. It is also submitted that the prayer is to cause the application for NOC to be considered and finalised in the said circumstance.

¶49

The learned Government Pleader submits that it is for the petitioner to submit necessary undertaking followed by an affidavit and such other requirements, as contemplated under the Rules, before the second respondent/Divisional Forest Officer, on which event, the same will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed within the shortest possible time.

¶50

In the said circumstance, the petitioner is set at liberty to approach the second respondent/Divisional Forest Officer, by filing necessary proceedings within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, upon which, the same will be

¶51

W.P.(C)No. 10470 OF 2011

¶52

¶53

considered and appropriate orders will be passed within one month thereafter. Interim order of 'Status quo' will continue till the proceedings are finalised as above.

¶54

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent/Divisional Forest Officer for further steps.

¶55

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶56

Chandy Joseph v. the Chief Conservator of Forests

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandy Joseph 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sainaba Vs State of Kerala

Usha Perinkatath Vs Tahasildar, Thalassery Taluk

T.R.Sivasankaran Vs the Banking Ombudsman

K.v.Kurien Vs the Tahsildar

C.K.Rajan Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Anil Kumar Vs the District Collector