Allowed

Eappen T .Thomas, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Oct 2020WA/1106/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The second appeal filed by the appellant against the dismissal of a writ petition challenging delays in granting permission to install a band saw in his sawmill. The court allowed the appeal and directed the Advisory Committee to consider the pending application, relying on a wood balance study report and issuing rules within a month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Advisory Committee to consider the appellant's application for installing a band saw within a month, considering the wood balance study report and rules.

Eappen T .Thomas, Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

WA.No.1106 OF 2020 - 1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶7

TUESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 14TH ASWINA, 1942

¶8

WA.No.1106 OF 2020

¶9

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21711/2016(L) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA

¶10

APPELLANT/S :

¶11

EAPPEN T .THOMAS,

¶12

AGED 63 YEARS

¶13

S/O.T.M.THOMAS, RESIDING AT THEKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
VECHOOCHIRA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADVS.
SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS
SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER
SMT.R.RAJASREE (CHUTTIMATTATHIL)

¶15

RESPONDENT/S :

¶16

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶17

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶18

2 THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶19

3 CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, (SPECIAL AFFORESTATION) AND NODAL OFFICER, CONVENER, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE, KERALA, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶20

4 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689672.

¶21

R1-4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶22

WA.No.1106 OF 2020 - 2-

¶23

OTHER PRESENT :

¶24

SRI. SANDESH RAJA K, SPL GP FOR RESPONDENTS

¶25

THISWRITAPPEALHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
06.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WA.No.1106 OF 2020 - 3-

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

¶29

This appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 21711 of 2016, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.05.2020 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The following were the reliefs sought for by the appellant in the writ petition:-

¶30

“i) to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records leading to the issuance of EXHIBIT-P16, P18 and P19 and quash the same and all further proceedings thereon;

¶31

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to install band saw in the petitioner's Sawmill namely Thekkeparambil Sawmill, Vechoochira, Ranni, without any reference to the availability of adequate quantity of wood from all sources.

¶32

iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner to entitled to install

¶33

WA.No.1106 OF 2020 - 4-

¶34

band saw in the petitioner's Sawmill namely Thekkeparambil Sawmill, Vechoochira, Ranni, without any reference to the availability of adequate quantity of wood from all sources.

¶35

iv) to issue any such other writ order or direction this Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶36

Basically the appellant sought to quash Exts. P16, P18

¶37

and P19 orders / communications issued by the State Government, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the Additional Chief Secretary dated 26.11.2015, 18.01.2016 and 21.04.2016 whereby the appellant was informed that his application for installation of band saw in sawmill can be considered only after completing the study and submitting a report by the Committee constituted for the purpose of verifying the use of the timber during the period 2014-15. Learned Single Judge has considered the submissions made by the appellant and entered into the finding that the refusal to grant license for any enhanced capacity cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when the Divisional Forest Officer rejected his application, he had preferred an

¶38

WA.No.1106 OF 2020 - 5-

¶39

appeal before the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, which was declined holding that there was no valid ground to consider the request. However, in the revision filed before the State Government, Ext. P16 order dated 26.11.2015 was passed basically stating that in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmill and Other Wood-based Industrial Units) Amendment Rules, 2015, the revision petition filed by the appellant is disposed of with direction to the appellant to apply before the Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee will consider the request of the appellant who installed band saw in Thekkeparambil Sawmill, after assessing the availability of wood from all sources and on satisfaction that adequate quantity of wood is available for the unit as per the Rules 2015.

¶40

Apparently, on the basis of the directions contained in Ext. P16 order, Ext. P17 application was submitted by the appellant before the State Advisory Committee dated 18.12.2015. On receipt of the said application on 18.01.2016, the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests had issued Ext. P18 communication to the appellant stating that the

¶41

WA.No.1106 OF 2020 - 6-

¶42

application for enhancing capacity of the unit can be considered only after assessing the availability of wood from all sources by the Advisory Committee. It is also specified thereunder that a work study on wood balance has already started and entrusted to the Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi and the application of the appellant will be considered after getting the wood balance study report from the institute.

¶43

Anyhow, since there was no positive action, petitioner has submitted a representation before the Chief Minister, which was forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretary and the Additional Chief Secretary has issued Ext. P19 communication dated 21.04.2016 informing the petitioner that his application for enhancing the capacity can be considered only after receiving the report from the Kerala Forest Research Institute. It is at that stage the appellant has filed the writ petition.

¶44

It is true a detailed counter affidavit is filed by the State Government in the writ petition disputing the claims with respect to the power enjoyed by the unit of the appellant and other aspects put forth by the appellant. It was accordingly that the

¶45

WA.No.1106 OF 2020 - 7-

¶46

writ petition was dismissed holding that no interference is

¶47

required to the aforesaid Government Order / communications issued by the respective authorities as specified above. In fact, in the appeal, the sole submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that consideration of Ext. P17, taking into account the relevant aspects and the report submitted by the Kerala Forest Research Institute, would suffice the situation. Accordingly, we directed the learned Special Government Pleader to produce the report of the Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, as per order dated 21.08.2020. The said report of the Kerala Forest Research Institute is produced along with a statement dated 16.09.2020. The summary of the said report reads thus”-

¶48

“A total of 9256 wood based industrial units have been provided with license/NOC by the Empowered Committee-Kerala Forest Development. At present these units handle 10.79 million m³ of round wood equivalent per annum whereas the total demand is for 10.98 million m³ of round wood equivalent per annum leaving a gap of 0.190 million m³ of round wood equivalent per annum between demand and installed sawmill capacity. This gap is filled by unregistered units or units working with the permission of local bodies alone. The present number of licensed

¶49

WA.No.1106 OF 2020 - 8-

¶50

units meet the current timber wood demand in the State. A physical verification of the sawmills should be taken up at periodic intervals to ensure that the licensed units are functional and wherever cases of non-functional units exist, the numbers may be met by issuing new licenses or permitting technological upgradation of the existing ones in the respective categories.”

¶51

Therefore it is now clear that Ext. P17 application pending before the Forest Advisory Committee can be considered, taking into account the report submitted by the Kerala Forest Research Institute and learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to finalize the application, taking into account the report and the attendant rules within a time frame.

¶52

Learned Special Government Pleader pointed out that there are certain definite findings entered by the learned Single Judge with respect to the capacity of the sawmill enjoyed by the petitioner and therefore, if any directions are issued, the observations and finding contained in the judgment of the

¶53

learned Single Judge may be retained as such.

¶54

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri.

¶55

WA.No.1106 OF 2020 - 9-

¶56

Thampan Thomas and the learned Special Government

¶57

Pleader for Forest Sri. Sandesh Raja.

¶58

As we have pointed out above, Ext.P16 order was passed by the State Government in the revision filed by the appellant stating that the application is to be preferred before the Advisory Committee and further that the application would be considered by the Advisory Committee, after assessing the availability of wood from all sources and on satisfaction that adequate quantity of wood is available for the unit as per the Rules 2015. It was accordingly that the appellant had submitted Ext. P17 application before the State Advisory Committee, the 2^nd respondent herein. Ext. P18 communication is issued by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests dated 18.01.2016 informing the appellant that his application would be considered once a work study report is submitted by the Kerala Forest Research Institute.

¶59

Now the study report is available and therefore we are of the considered opinion that the Advisory Committee has to take a decision, in accordance with law, taking into account the report and all other attendant legal and factual circumstances.

¶60

WA.No.1106 OF 2020 - 10-

¶61

In that view of the matter, the writ appeal is allowed and there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent, the Advisory Committee, Forest Headquarters, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram to consider Ext. P17 application submitted by the appellant, taking into account the wood balance study

¶62

report submitted by the Kerala Forest Research Institute during December 2017 and the attendant facts and Rules and in accordance with law, at the earliest and at any rate within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after

¶63

providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY

JUDGE

Eb/07.10.2020

///TRUE COPY///

P.A. TO JUDGE

Eappen T .Thomas, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eappen T .Thomas, v. State of Kerala

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

Kerala Karshaka Samrakshana Association, Vs State of Kerala

Mets School of Engineering Vs Dr. Rajasree.M.S

V.Sasidharan Vs the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions

S.Subramaniam Vs State of Kerala

Infocom Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Central Board of Secondary Education, Vs Shanu