Dismissed

Thomas Edison, v. The Principal Chief

Madras HC28 Jan 2016WP/25429/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash forest authority proceedings denying permission to operate a saw mill. The court held the im gunned order was sound because the petitioner failed to produce documents proving the mill existed before the statutory cut-off date of 30.10.2002.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner is directed to approach respondents with proper documents to substantiate existence before 30.10.2002.

Thomas Edison, Vs The Principal Chief — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28.01.2016

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

W.P.No.25429/2014

Thomas Edison

Petitioner

Versus

1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Jennes Road, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet,
Chennai-15.

¶10

2.The District Forest Officer
O/o.The District Forest Office
Vellore.

¶11

3.The Executive Engineer Town Section, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Pernampet Vellore District. .. Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1579/2013/L/ dated 06.12.2013 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to allow the petitioner to run the Saw Mill at No.24, South Road, Pernampet, Vellore District.

¶13

For petitioner ... Mrs.Selvi George For R1 & R2 ... Mr.M.K.Subramanian, Spl.GP For R3 ... Mr.M.Varunkumar

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner ; Mr.M.K.Subramanian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.Varun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent and with their consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶16

2 The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned proceedings dated 06.12.2013 and to direct the 2^nd respondent to allow the petitioner to run the Saw Mill at No.24, South Road,

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

Pernampet, Vellore District.

¶19

3 On a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is seen that the petitioner's application has been returned/rejected for the reasons that the petitioner has failed to produce any document to substantiate that it was an existing Saw Mill carrying on operations prior to the cut-off date, i.e., 30.10.2002. In fact, the District Forest Officer has filed an elaborate counter affidavit and stated that the petitioner has miserably failed to produce any document pertaining to the existence of the Saw Mill before 30.10.2002. In the absence of any such document being produced before the competent authority, the order passed by the 2^nd respondent cannot be faulted.

¶20

4 Hence, for the above reason, no grounds have been made out by the petitioner to quash the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

¶21

5 However, this will not prevent the petitioner from approaching the respondents 1 and 2 with proper documents to substantiate his case that the Saw Mill was in existence before 30.10.2002 and if the same is submitted, it shall be considered by the respondents 1 and 2 in accordance with law.

¶22

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar AP To 1.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Jennes Road, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai-15. 2.The District Forest Officer O/o.The District Forest Office Vellore. 3.The Executive Engineer Town Section, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Pernampet Vellore District.

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

W.P.No.25429/2014

¶25

+1 cc to M/S.Selvi George Advocate sr.5871

¶26

+1 cc to Special Government Pleader (Forest) sr.5296/16

¶27

aa08/02/2016

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Thomas Edison, v. The Principal Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Edison, v. The Principal Chief

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

N.P.Sons Constructions Vs Vinoth Kumar IFS

Tmt.Ponnuvel Vs Mrs.Punitha

N.Guruswamy Vs Gnanasekar

Sorrento Homes Vs the Presiding Officer

Gomathi Sago Factory, Vs The Deputy Registrar

Syed Gaffer Vs K.Sowrirajan