Dismissed

K.C.Reghu v. the Chief Forest Conservator

Kerala HC13 Nov 2019WP(C)/14666/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court observed that an order rejecting the petitioner's application was already in force and validly served. The petitioner cannot avoid the deadline via a later reminder. Proper remedy is appealing before the appellate authority with condonation of delay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to prefer appeal before appellate authority within time with application for condonation of delay.

K.C.Reghu Vs the Chief Forest Conservator — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.14666 OF 2019(G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.C.REGHU, AGED 70 YEARS S/O. KORAN, K.C. HOUSE, PATTYAM, KOTTAYODI POST PATHAYAKKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH SMT.MEENA.A. SMT.M.R.MINI SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH SRI.ROHIT NANDAKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR SPECIAL AFFORESTATION AND NODAL OFFICER AND CONVENOR, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.

¶11

2 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST RANGE OFFICER, DIVISIONAL FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KANNUR 670 001.

¶12

3 THE RANGE OFFICER, KANNAVAM FOREST RANGE, KANNUR 670 001.

¶13

R1-3 BY SRI.SANDESH RAJA.K., SPL. G.P. (FOREST)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C) No. 14666 of 2019

¶16

-2-

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

This writ petition has been filed

¶19

challenging Ext.P9 order and seeking directions to the respondents to consider Ext.P10 application preferred by the petitioner treating it as a continuation of Ext.P4 application preferred within time.

¶20

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

¶21

petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Forest Department.

¶22

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been operating a saw mill from the year 1985 onwards. It is stated that since the saw mill was one in operation before

¶23

30.10.2002, the petitioner had made Ext.P4 application under the provisions of Rule 3 of the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and other

¶24

Wood-Based Industrial Units) Rules, 2012

¶25

(hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2012”). It is

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 14666 of 2019

¶27

-3-

¶28

submitted that no steps had been taken for consideration for the said application. By Ext.P5 judgment dated 24.02.2015, respondents were directed to consider Ext.P4 application preferred by the petitioner and to pass orders thereon. It is stated that after Ext.P5, Ext.P6 and several further notices had been issued to the petitioner to produce documents for the consideration of the application. It is stated that the petitioner was under treatment at the S.A.V.M. Ayurveda Hospital at Vavvakkavu, Kollam District, and that as such, he was not aware of the issuance of Ext.P6 and P8 series notices and could not respond to it. It is stated that the petitioner again preferred a representation as a reminder, but the same has been rejected by Ext.P9 order dated 15.11.2018. It is submitted that Ext.P9 states that application preferred by the petitioner on 08.11.2018 is beyond time as provided under the Rule 3(3) of the Rules,

¶29

W.P.(C) No. 14666 of 2019

¶30

-4-

¶31

2012 and therefore cannot be considered.

¶32

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that his application at Ext.P4 remained undisposed of and as such, what he had submitted on 08.11.2018 was only a reminder, and that it ought to have been considered with reference to Ext.P4 application which was submitted well within time. It is therefore contended that the application preferred by the petitioner is liable to be considered on its merits and that the petitioner is ready to produce all the documents sought for in Exts.P6 and P8 series of notices for a proper consideration of the same.

¶33

5. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the third respondent. It is stated that

¶34

notices had been repeatedly issued to the petitioner to produce material before the respondents for a proper consideration of the application preferred at Ext.P4. However, the

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 14666 of 2019

¶36

-5-

¶37

petitioner did not respond to the repeated notices and therefore an order rejecting his application had been rendered on 20.06.2015. The order of rejection was produced as Annexure R3(d). It is stated that since the application preferred by the petitioner stood disposed of, the later representation preferred by the petitioner could not be considered since the time limit had long expired.

¶38

6. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the fact of rejection of his application on 20.06.2015 had been brought to the notice of this Court while rendering Ext.P11 judgment dated 04.02.2019. It is stated that even in spite of the copy of the order having been marked to the petition, the petitioner has not found it fit to challenge the said order till date. In the above view of the matter, it is contended that no further orders can be passed in this writ

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 14666 of 2019

¶40

-6-

¶41

petition.

¶42

7. I have considered the contentions

¶43

advanced.

¶44

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Ext.P8(b) notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.06.2015. It is stated that the said notice directs the production of the documents required within seven days. It is therefore contended that the fact of rejection of the application by Annexure R3(d) dated 20.06.2015 is highly suspicious since the very same officer has issued Ext.P8(b) notice.

¶45

9. I notice that a copy of Annexure R3(d) has been marked to the petitioner also. There is no pleading to the effect that the petitioner was unaware of the rendering of an order rejecting his application. In any view of the matter, it is clear from Ext.P11 that the fact that the petitioner's application had been rejected on 20.06.2015 had

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 14666 of 2019

¶47

-7-

¶48

been brought to the notice of this Court and therefore of the petitioner also, at least at the time of the disposal of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner by Ext.P11 judgment. The fact that a notice had been issued on 29.06.2015 requiring production of documents, cannot, by itself lead to a presumption that the order of rejection dated 20.06.2015 was not passed or sent to the petitioner.

¶49

10. In the above factual situation, I am of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner, that the petitioner is liable to be given a further opportunity to produce the documents as required in Ext.P6 and the reconsideration of the application is to be ordered, cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that Annexure R3(d) order of rejection is already in force. The petitioner can only attempt an appeal against the same in terms Rule 19 of the Rules, 2012.

¶50

W.P.(C) No. 14666 of 2019

¶51

-8-

¶52

11. The Rules provide for preferring of an appeal against orders of the competent authority before the appellate authority within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. The proviso to Rule 19(1) states that the appellate authority may admit an appeal presented after the expiry of 30 days if the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal in time.

¶53

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the proper remedy available to the

¶54

petitioner is to prefer an appeal with an application for condonation of delay before the appellate authority as provided under the Rules. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, the writ petition is closed.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

Ds 14.11.2019

W.P.(C) No. 14666 of 2019

¶60

-9-

¶61

APPENDIX

¶62

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶63

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KANNUR DATED 17.1.1985.

¶64

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 21.11.1998 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER TO THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS THALASSERY. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC ONCE AGAIN GRANTED ON 18.9.2003. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF EXT. P3 NOC PREFERRED BEFORE THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KANNUR DATED 24.8.2012. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.2.2015 IN WPC NO. 4838/2015 BY THIS HONBLE COURT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY DFO DATED 20.2.2015 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY S.A.V.M AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, DATED 2.4.2015.

¶65

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE DFO KANNUR DIVISION DATED 1.6.2015. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE DFO KANNUR DIVISION DATED 12.6.2015. EXHIBIT P8 B TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE DFO KANNUR DIVISION DATED 29.6.2015

¶66

W.P.(C) No. 14666 of 2019

¶67

-10-

¶68

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2018 PASSED BY THE DFO. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.11.2018. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C. NO. 2936/2009 DATED 4.2.2019.

¶69

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R3 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.02.2015 EXHIBIT R3 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.WI-7269/14 DT. 12.06.2015 EXHIBIT R3 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT. EXHIBIT R3 (d) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.WI/7269/2014 DATED 20/06/2015 EXHIBIT R3 (e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.11.2018 EXHIBIT R3 (f) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.11.2018

K.C.Reghu v. the Chief Forest Conservator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.C.Reghu v. the Chief Forest Conservator

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

Moossa a.P.K., Vs Saseendra Vyas

Aneesh Appu Vs Biji.P.v

Superior General, Vs Rajesh

Rajesh Mathew Vs Department of Women and Child Development

A.B.Kuttan Vs State of Kerala and Others

M/S. K.Ravindran Vs State of Kerala