Disposed

Smt.Malathiamma v. the Divisional Forest Officer,Thrissur

Kerala HC6 Nov 2013WP(C)/4173/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court directed the Divisional Forest Officer to consider the petitioner's application for license renewal of her saw mill within two months, ignoring a previous order rejecting the permanent registration request, and to follow the 2012 Rules after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider the application for license renewal and pass appropriate orders within two months after a hearing.

Smt.Malathiamma Vs the Divisional Forest… — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/15TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 4173 of 2012 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SMT.MALATHI AMMA.M. AGED 64 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M.R.SONS SAW MILL, PAINKULAM ROAD, CHERUTHURUTHI, THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SIBY MATHEW

¶9

SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 005.

¶12

2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SPECIAL AFORESTATION AND NODAL OFFICER, VAZHUTHAKKAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 014.

¶13

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.THOMASKUTTY

¶14

BY SRI.M.P.PRAKASH,SPL.GP FOR FOREST

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 4173 of 2012 (V)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1- COPY OF NOC ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, ON 19-7-2002.

¶20

EXT.P2- COPY OF ORDER NO.1/03-04, DT.7.4.2003 PASSED BY THE VALLATHOLNAGAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶21

EXT.P3-COPY OF RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FEE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF MACHINERY, BY THE PANCHAYAT.

¶22

EXT.P4- COPY OF APPLICATION, DT.20.4.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P5- COPY OF LETTER DT.7.5.2007 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXT.P6- COPY OF LETTER, DT.12.5.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXT.P7- COPY OF LICENSE ISSUED BY THE VALLATHOL NAGAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2005 TO 31.3.2006.

¶26

EXT.P8- COPY OF LICENSE ISSUED BY THE VALLATHOL NAGAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2010 TO 31.3.2011.

¶27

EXT.P9- COPY OF INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FROM THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXT.10- COPY OF VERIFICATION REPORT PREPARED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD.

¶29

EXT.P11- COPY OF GO NO.42729/G2/04/ID DATED 16.6.2004.

¶30

EXT.P12- COPY OF JUDGMENT, DT.27.9.2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C)NO.24217/2011.

¶31

EXT.P13- COPY OF ORDER NO.F.C.4-2072/2009, DT.19.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXT.P14- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 16.9.2002 OF THE VALLATHOLE NAGAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶33

EXT.P15- COPY OF THE LETTER FORWARDED BY THE PANCHAYAT TO THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.

¶34

WP(C).No. 4173 of 2012 (V)

¶35

EXT.P16- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENSE DATED 11.11.2012.

¶36

EXT.P17- COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶37

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶42

----------------------------------------------W.P(C) No.4173 of 2012

¶43

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2013

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to grant NOC for the saw mill run by the petitioner under the name and style M.R.Sons at Painkulam Road, Cheruthuruthy, Thrissur.

¶46

The sequence of events reveals that the petitioner was granted Ext.P1 NOC for obtaining SSI registration to start an industrial unit. It is stated that the petitioner has obtained necessary clearance from the local authority as well and installed the machinery in the unit. Ext.P4 application was submitted by the petitioner before the 1^st respondent to have the SSI registration to be renewed and to grant permanent registration. This application was preferred in the year 2004. Later, in response to the application filed by the petitioner on 20.4.2007 to have the Ext.P1 NOC renewed again, Ext.P5 communication dated 7.5.2007 was issued, relegating the petitioner to approach the Central Empowered Committee. It was accordingly, that the petitioner approached the Central Empowered Committee, pursuant to which the site was inspected leading to Ext.P10 verification report. Since the proceedings were not finalised, the

¶47

W.P(C) No.4173 of 2012

¶48

¶49

petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P(C) No.24217/2011, which was disposed of as per by Ext.P12 judgment, directing the concerned authorities to finalise the proceedings in the light of Ext.P10.

¶50

After considering the claim and credentials of the petitioner, it was rejected by the 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P13 order dated 19.11.2011, observing that the request could not be acceded to for the time being and that final decision could be taken only after getting a study report from the Forest Research Institute.

¶51

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the meanwhile, the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Saw Mills and Other Wood Based Industrial Units) Rules, 2012 were brought into existence with effect from 19.4.2012. By virtue of the change of circumstances, necessary NOC had to be issued by the 1^st respondent and it was accordingly, that the petitioner submitted Ext.P16 application for license before the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent sent Ext.P17 reply dated 23.11.2012 referring to the pendency of the present writ petition as a hurdle, in considering the application preferred by the petitioner, which made the petitioner to get the writ petition amended. This was allowed as per order dated 20.12.2012.

¶52

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only relief now pressed before this Court is to direct the 1^st

¶53

W.P(C) No.4173 of 2012 3

¶54

respondent to consider Ext.P16 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

¶55

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶56

Considering the facts and circumstances, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P16 and pass appropriate orders in the light of Ext.P14 and P15 and such other documents/materials, in tune with the relevant provisions of the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Saw Mills and Other Wood Based Industrial Units) Rules, 2012. Appropriate orders shall be passed as above, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, Ext.P13 will not stand in the way of considering Ext.P16 application by the 1^st respondent as aforesaid.

¶57

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the amended writ petition before the 1^st respondent for further steps.

¶58

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶59

Smt.Malathiamma v. the Divisional Forest Officer,Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Malathiamma v. the Divisional Forest Officer,Thrissur

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.T.Abdussamad Vs District Collector, Malappuram

Alexander George Vs the Chief General Manager

Mohanan Vs Village Offier, Vazhakkulam Village

E.a.Nisa Vs P.v.Narayanan

Jose Vs Indu Lekha

Suseela Dinakaran Vs Director, Kerala Fisheries Department