Disposed

Noby K.Joy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Dec 2021WP(C)/1090/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by a furniture unit proprietor seeking renewal of his license. The court held that since the petitioner had an effective remedy under Rule 19 of the Kerala Forest Rules, 2012, the writ petition was disposed of to permit him to avail the statutory appellate remedy.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Rule 19 of the Kerala Forest Rules, 2012.

Noby K.Joy Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 1090 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

NOBY K.JOY, PROPRIETOR, ST. GEORGE FURNITURE, S/O. K.P. JOY @ VARKEY PAILY, KUDIYIRKKAL HOUSE, MURIKKASERY P.O., MURIKKASERY, IDUKKI DISTRICT – 685 604.

¶7

BY ADV E.A.BIJUMON

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶10

2 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTTAYAM, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686 002.

¶11

3 THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER, AYYAPPANKOVIL, KANJIYAR RANGE OFFICE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 507.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANGEETH C.U.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.1090/2021

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2021

¶18

The petitioner who is running a Packing Case Unit and a furniture work shop has filed this writ petition seeking to renew the licence granted to the petitioner and to direct the 1^st respondent to take appropriate decision on Ext.P4 application for enhancing the capacity of the Packing Case Unit, submitted by the petitioner.

¶19

The petitioner states that he is running a Packing

¶20

Case Unit and a furniture work shop from the year 2013 onwards. The unit was started after obtaining financial assistance from Banks. On 26.03.2016, the petitioner received an order from the 1^st respondent to the effect that the licence of the unit is suspended for the reason that the petitioner is sawing a different type of wood instead of rubber wood.

¶21

¶22

WP(C)No.1090/2021

¶23

The petitioner states that he submitted Ext.P2 application for renewal of Ext.P1 liecence. The application was submitted on 26.11.2016. The application was accepted by the 1^st respondent as evidenced by Ext.P3. The petitioner also submitted Ext.P4 application dated 26.11.2016 for enhancement of the capacity of the industrial unit. While Exts.P2 and P4 were pending, the respondents initiated steps to close down the unit of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court with the above writ petition.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are bound to take a decision on Ext.P2 application for renewal of licence and Ext.P4 application for enhancement of the capacity of the industrial unit. The failure of the respondents to consider those applications is illegal and arbitrary.

¶25

¶26

WP(C)No.1090/2021

¶27

The Divisional Forest Officer resisted the writ

¶28

petition filing a Statement. The 2^nd respondent – Divisional Forest Officer stated that the applications submitted by the petitioner were rejected as per Annexure R1(a). The 2^nd respondent further submitted that a number of complaints were received alleging that the petitioner is sawing timber other than rubber wood. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 26.03.2016 requiring him to show cause as to why the licence should not be cancelled, for violation of licence conditions.

¶29

The petitioner gave an explanation to the effect that one day certain non-rubber wood timber happened to reach his unit in a Mini Lorry and the men who accompanied the timber asked his workers to saw the same. But the petitioner's workers refused to do so. The Forest staff came to the spot and took the timber into custody. The Divisional Forest Officer stated that since the petitioner has violated

¶30

WP(C)No.1090/2021

¶31

¶32

the licence conditions he is not entitled to seek for renewal of licence.

¶33

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶34

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader (Forests) appearing for the respondents.

¶35

During the pendency of this writ petition, an interim order was passed on 30.07.2021 directing that the activity of the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1 licence shall not be interdicted till orders are passed on the application preferred by the petitioner for renewal of the licence. Subsequent to the said direction, the Divisional Forest Officer has passed Ext.P6 order dated 02.11.2021 refusing to renew the licence. The order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer on 02.11.2021 is appealable under Rule 19 of the Kerala Forest Rules, 2012. As a statutory remedy is available to the petitioner against Ext.P6, this Court do not intend to adjudicate on the legality of Ext.P6 at this stage. It

¶36

¶37

¶38

will be sufficient if the petitioner is relegated to avail the appellate remedy before the appropriate authority.

¶39

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy. If the petitioner files an appeal within a period of one month, it shall be considered by the appellate authority on merits. To enable the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy, the benefit of interim order dated 30.07.2021 will continue to enure to the benefit of the petitioner for a period of one month from today.

¶40

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

ncd/02.12.2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1090/2021

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 01.04.2014. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE LICENSE DATED 26.11.2016. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON RECEIVING THE EXT P2 APPLICATION DATED 28.11.2016. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26.11.2016 FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE CAPACITY OF THE SAW MILL. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN ON FEES REMITTED FOR THE SUBMISSION OF EXHIBIT P4 APPLICATION DATED 28/11/2016. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02/11/2021.

¶47

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES

¶48

ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E2-6910/13 DTD.10.01.2014 ANNEXURE R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DTD.19.04.2016. ANNEXURE R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER GIVEN TO THE DFO, KOTTAYAM DATED 16.06.2016. ANNEXURE R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.VSY1241/2021 DATED 02.12.2020 OF THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, INSPECTION & EVALUATION ANNEXURE R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.E3.6187/2020 DATED 30.03.2021.

Noby K.Joy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noby K.Joy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sathyadevan K., Vs T.P.Hyderali

Mathew Padinjarayil Joseph @ Mathew Joseph Vs the District Collector

Abla Mohamed Abdellah Mohamed Vs Union Bank of India

Varkey Thomas, Vs the Government of Kerala

Muhammed Rashid .C.T Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Looka @ Joy Vs State of Kerala