Allowed

P.J.George v. Chief Forest Conservator

Kerala HC8 Dec 2021WP(C)/11409/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ petition challenging No Objection Certificate restricting capacity to 20 HP against medical evidence of 37.5 HP operation. Court deemed challenge sustainable, ordered quashing of that portion, and directed reconsideration with opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P12 quashed to extent confining N.O.C to 20 HP capacity. 1st respondent directed to reconsider matter and send within three months.

P.J.George Vs Chief Forest Conservator — Kerala HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶4

1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 11409 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.J.GEORGE

¶8

AGED 54 YEARS

¶9

PATTATHANAM HOUSE, CHANNANIKAD.P.O., KOTTAYAM,
PIN-686531.

¶10

BY ADV MATHEW JOHN (K)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR, HIGHWAYS CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶13

2 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,

¶14

KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶15

3 SECRETARY, PANACHIKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUZHIMATTAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686532.

¶16

4 ADDL R4, THE MANAGER(DEPUTY DIRECTOR) DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,

¶17

KOTTAYAM-686 001

¶18

ADDL R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13-02-2020 IN
IA NO 2/2020

¶19

BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL GOVT. PLEADER, FOREST
NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP
SIBY CHENAPPADY

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C).No.11409/2019

¶22

¶23

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶24

W.P.(C).No.11409 of 2019

¶25

Dated this the 08^th day of December, 2021

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶28

i. Call for the records leading upto Ext. P12 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing Ext. P12 to the extent it has confined the renewal of the N.O.C to a switch board manufacturing unit with 20 H.P. capacity.

¶29

ii. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to have the N.O.C renewed to run the unit utilizing machineries having 37.5 H.P capacity for the purpose of using the same as a packing case unit.

¶30

iii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other order or direction commanding the 1^st respondent to renew the N.O.C of the petitioner's unit to run the same as a saw mill with machineries, having a capacity of 37.5 H.P for manufacture of packing cases and other allied products.

¶31

iv. Issue such other writ, direction or order as are just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C).No.11409/2019

¶34

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P12 proceedings of the 1^st respondent to the extent it has confined the renewal of the No Objection Certificate of the petitioner’s saw mill to one for manufacture of switch boards alone and that too confining its capacity to 20 HP as against the capacity of 37.5 HP which was being used by the petitioner uninterruptedly from 1999 onwards. According to the petitioner, the stand of the 1^st respondent is unsustainable.

¶35

When this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court issued notice to the Panchayat who issued the licence. The 3^rd respondent Panchayat filed an affidavit before this Court. It will be better to extract the affidavit:

¶36

“3. The then Secretary of the Panchayat is seen to have issued D&O license to the petitioner for the year 2002-2003 which has been produced along with the writ petition as Exhibit P4. The horse power noted in the license certificate is 37 HP. The then Secretary of the Panchayat also seems to have issued a certificate as Exhibit P10 certifying that the petitioner has been working with 37.5 Horse Power from 1998-99 onwards. Exhibit P11 further certificate seems to have been issued by then Secretary of the Panchayat further certifying that the petitioner has been issued licence for running a firm named Geo Wood and Metal Industries for

¶37

W.P.(C).No.11409/2019

¶38

¶39

manufacturing rubber wood packing case using 37.5 HP from 27/02/2002 to 31/03/2012.

¶40

It is submitted that as per Manual of Office Procedures, a closed file like D & O License has to be kept for 3 years since they are closed as K-diss. The files pertaining to Exhibit P4 are not available in this office as it has been closed 19 years back. Hence this respondent is not in a position to verify the genuineness of Exhibit P4 document from the files available in the Panchayat. That said, this respondent has absolutely no reason to doubt the genuineness of Exhibit P4, P10 and P11 documents produced along with the writ petition or the veracity of the contents of the said documents, as they have been issued by my predecessors in office in discharge of their official functions. The certificate register maintained in the Panchayat records the issuance of Exhibit P10 and Exhibit P11 certificates by the then Secretary of the Panchayat to the petitioner. Nothing has come to my notice as would lead to any doubts regarding the genuiness of the said documents or as to the veracity of the contents of the said documents.

¶41

From the Exhibits produced along with writ petition it is clear that my predecessors in office never had any doubt regarding the horse power of the machinery used in the petitioner's industry. This respondent is also not having any doubts regarding the horse power used by the petitioner, which as per the records currently available in the Panchayat is 37.5 HP. This respondent is willing to renew the

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C).No.11409/2019

¶44

petitioner's D & O license, if the petitioner submits NOC from the forest department and valid pollution control certificate.”

¶45

In the light of the above affidavit, according to me, the 1^st respondent should reconsider the matter. The 1^st respondent can hear the Panchayat also while passing a fresh order. Admittedly there is an interim order in this case by which the petitioner is functioning the saw mill. That can be allowed to continue till a final decision is taken by the 1^st respondent.

¶46

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

¶47

Ext.P12 is quashed to the extent it has confined the renewal of the No Objection Certificate to a switch board manufacturing unit with 20 HP capacity.

¶48

The 1^st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the contents in the affidavit which is extracted above and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, after

¶49

giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Panchayat, as expeditiously

¶50

W.P.(C).No.11409/2019

¶51

¶52

as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

Till final orders are passed by the 1^st respondent, the interim order already granted by this Court will be in force.

¶54

sd/-

¶55

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

¶58

W.P.(C).No.11409/2019

¶59

¶60

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11409/2019

¶61

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE DFO, KOTTAYAM, CERTIFYING THAT THE
PETITIONER WAS PROVIDED WITH A
REGISTERED PROPERTY MARK FOR THE YEAR
1999-2004 VIDE CERTIFICATE NO.11/99-
2004 DATED 12.1.2000.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE NO.11/99-2004, ISSUED B Y
THE DFO, KOTTAYAM DATED 12.1.2000.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF N.O.C. DATED 12.1.2000
ISSUED BY THE DFO IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER FOR OBTAINING S.S.I
REGISTRATION FOR THE UNIT.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE FOR THE YEAR
2002-2003.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED
3.8.2007 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIES OF THE STATE REGARDING THE
PETITIONER'S UNIT AS A PACKING CASE
UNIT VIDE.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
15.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE DEPOT RANGE
OFFICER TO THE D.F.O. KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL OF N.O.C. TO
THE PETITIONER'S UNIT VIDE D.F.O'S
PROCEEDINGS DATED 6.3.2008.
EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LANCE DATED
17.2.2010, VALID UPTO 31.3.2010.
EXHIBIT P9A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
20.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE C.C.F.
EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
27.5.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
5.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.3.2019
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶62

W.P.(C).No.11409/2019

¶63

¶64

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE R2(A)COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.246 A2-2002/03
DATED 27.03.2002
ANNEXURE R2(B)COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E3-3913/2012
DATED 25.01.2019
ANNEXURE R2(C)COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.25/98-99 DATED
06.04.1998
ANNEXURE R2(D)COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER

P.J.George v. Chief Forest Conservator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.J.George v. Chief Forest Conservator

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

Olive Builders & Developers, Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Olive Builders & Developers Vs State of Kerala

Afsal S., Vs Union of India

C.v.Issac Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh S.Pillai Vs Federal Bank

Varghese M.P., Vs the Principal Secretary to Govt.