A sawmill owner challenged forest authorities' refusal to grant a No Objection Certificate and licence citing two forest offences. The court found the petitioner was never convicted by a criminal court, and Rule 8(1)(i) of the Sawmill Rules 2012 bars only convicted persons. Refusal was unjustified.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 18461 OF 2014
PETITIONER/S:
1M. MOHAMMEDALI
S/O. SAINUDHEEN HAJI, RESIDING AT MOOTHEDATH HOUSE,
EDAKKARA.P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM.
ADDL.P2JAMJITH. M
S/O LATE M. MOHAMMEDALI, RESIDING AT MOOTHEDATH HOUSE,
EDAKKARA PO., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM
(ADDL.2ND PETITIONER IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
13.03.2024 IN I.A.1 OF 2023.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
SRI.P.A.HARISH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.2 THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR EASTERN CIRCLE OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD-678001.3 THE CONVENER STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE & CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR(SPECIAL AFORESTATION)& NODEL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.4 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER NILAMBUR NORTH DIVISION, MALAPPURAM-679329.OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. T.P. SAJAN -SPL.GP FOR FOREST
SRI. SANGEETH C.U – GP (FOREST)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.03.2024,THE COURT ON 26.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.18461 of 2014
2
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
i] Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibit P5 order of the 4th respondent.
ii] Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibit P7 order of the 2nd respondent.
iii] Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibit P9 order of the 1st respondent.
iv] Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to reconsider the application according to rules and issue license to the petitioner.
the name and style of Fathima Saw Mill at Edakkara in Malappuram District. He is running the saw mill from 1974 onwards. The license for conducting the saw mill was periodically renewed on the basis of the No Objection Certificate issued by the Forest Authorities from time to time. In the year 2005-06, when an application was submitted by the petitioner for renewal of license, the fourth respondent did not take any action. While so, the petitioner filed Ext.P1 application before the third respondent for NOC for wood based industry on 30.09.2010. On the basis of the application, verification was conducted and Ext.P2 report was submitted by the Assistant
W.P.(C) No.18461 of 2014
3
Conservator of Forest. However, the fourth respondent declined the application stating that since another furniture unit is working in the same premises, the application of the petitioner cannot be considered. On receipt of Ext.P3 rejection letter, the petitioner shifted the furniture unit from the said premises and filed an undertaking affidavit before the fourth respondent. The petitioner has also remitted the inspection fee to the concerned authority. Thereafter, as per Ext.P5 order dated 22.05.2013, the petitioner was informed that he was involved in two forest offences in respect of the conduct of the saw mill. Though appeal and revision was filed by the petitioner, the same ended in dismissal. Challenging Exts.P5, P7 and P9 orders, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.
W.P.(C) No.18461 of 2014
4
filed against the said seizure as CMA No.23 of 1992 before the District Court, Manjeri, the same was dismissed. After the seizure of the machineries, the petitioner installed new machineries and continued its functioning. Therefore, another offense was also registered against the petitioner as O.R.No.2 of 2013 in Pothukal Forest Station under Vazhikkadavu Range for illicit possession of Rose Wood timber in the above sawmill premises. After 2003-04, the license was not renewed. An application submitted by the petitioner before the State Level Committee for issuing NOC was verified by the team of forest officers, who was working under the Assistant Conservator of Forests. They reported only the details of machineries attached to the above sawmill. They were not aware of the offences connected with the above unit. Moreover, the petitioner failed to disclose the truth connected with the confiscation of the machineries of the sawmill. The petitioner obtained NOC by hiding the facts connected with confiscation of machinery and also the judgment in CMA No.23 of 1992. Since it came to the notice of the 4th respondent the involvement of the above sawmill in the forest offences during 1991, Ext.P5 order was passed rejecting the application for NOC.
W.P.(C) No.18461 of 2014
5
of 1982, dated 15.02.2002. The said case revealed that the petitioner was involved in forest offence under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. It is also contended that the petitioner is not convicted in any forest offence as on today, by a Criminal Court. But the licence cannot be permitted to a person who violates Kerala Forest Act or any other Act related to Forest. The sawmill Rules, 2012, says that no sawmill unit involved in any forest offence shall be allowed to continue functioning. One Hyderali was managing the sawmill during that period as revealed from the enquiry. But no documentary evidence was there to prove that the mill was given on rent. The petitioner can be granted license from the Forest department only in accordance with the relevant rules. The petitioner is not eligible for license as per the provisions under the sawmill Rules, 2012.
W.P.(C) No.18461 of 2014
6
the fourth respondent, stating that the petitioner has been involved in two forest offences. One offence is that of the year 1991 and other offence stated to have been committed as O.R.No.2 of 2013. Ext.P10 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – II (FM Manjeri), in C.C.No.44 of 2013, (arising out of O.R. No.2 of 2013) shows that the accused persons in the said crime are Saramma and Renni Varghese. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner was involved in O.R.No.2 of 2013. On the basis of the interim order dated 18.07.2014, passed by this Court, the petitioner was admittedly running the sawmill till 2023 and no cases whatsoever in nature have been reported against the petitioner.
W.P.(C) No.18461 of 2014
7
other wood based industrial units), Rules 2012, prescribes the procedure for obtaining license. Rule 8 (1) (i) of the Kerala Forest (Regulation of sawmills and other wood based industrial units), Rules 2012 reads as follows:-
W.P.(C) No.18461 of 2014
8
respondents, not granting renewal of the license for conduct of the sawmill cannot be justified. As said earlier, on the basis of the interim order dated 18.07.2014 that the petitioner was running the sawmill from 2014 till 2023. Admittedly, no forest offence or any other case has been registered against the petitioner or the sawmill. The petitioner has not been convicted in any forest offences by a criminal court.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition is to be allowed.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Exts.P5 , P7 and P9 orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the Ext.P1 application for license/NOC filed by the petitioner and issue license/NOC to the petitioner for conducting the saw mill, in accordance with law, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
RK
W.P.(C) No.18461 of 2014
9
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18461/2014
PETITIONER EXHIBITSExhibit P1 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE |
|---|---|
PETITIONER DATED 30-9-2010. |
|
Exhibit P2 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED TO THEPETITIONER DATED 7-5-11. |
Exhibit P3 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26-9-2012. |
Exhibit P4 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFDIVAT DATED 11-1-2012. |
Exhibit P5 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4THRESPONDENT DATED 22-5-2013. |
Exhibit P6 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ANDTHE APPLICATION FOR PREFERRING APPEAL DATED19-6-2013. |
Exhibit P7 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-7-2013. |
Exhibit P8 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THEPETITIONER DATED 27-8-2013. |
Exhibit P9 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1-3-2014. |
Exhibit P10 |
COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.C. NO. 44/2013 OFJUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, MANJERIDATED 2.3.2015 |
Exhibit P11 |
COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RANGE |
OFFICER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED3.4.2013 |
|
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS |
|
Exhibit R1(a) |
True copy of the order No T-12421/1991dated 29/1/1992 of DFO Nilambur North alongwith typed copy. |
Exhibit R1(b) |
True copy of the order dated 15/2/2002 in |
CMA 23/1992 of Honble District CourtManjeri along with typed copy. |
|
Exhibit R1(c) |
True copy of the mahazar dated 1/5/2013. |
Exhibit R1(d) |
True copy of the Form 1 Report dated26/1/2013 along with typed copy. |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's sawmill could be denied licence/NOC on the ground of alleged forest offences when no criminal conviction was recorded against the petitioner or the mill.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M. Mohammedali
Jamjith. M
The Secretary to Government, Department of Forest
The Chief Forest Conservator, Eastern Circle, Olavakkode
The Convener, State Level Committee & Chief Forest Conservator (Special Afforestation)
The Divisional Forest Officer, Nilambur North Division
Shoba Annamma Eapen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court