IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22169 of 2011(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.SIVASHANKARAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.DEVAKI AMMA, KARUMALI HOUSE, KODALY, P.O.PADI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (APPROVED FOREST CONVENER IN VELLIKULANGARA FOREST RANGE). BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, OFFICE OF THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VANAPRIYA FOREST COMPLEX, PARAVATTANI, THRISSUR. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE RANGE OFFICER, VELLIKULANGARA RANGE, OFFICE OF THE RANGE OFFICER, VELLIKULANGARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.22169/2011-U: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT LETTER DTD. 23/07/2008. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REVISED ESTIMATE DTD. 11/03/2009. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER/NOTICE DTD. 04/06/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 20/06/2011. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPEATED ORDER/NOTICE DTD. 21/06/2011. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 26/07/2011. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE G.O.118/89/FOREST DTD. 21/12/89. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).22169/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT 1.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2.The prayer in the writ petition is to quash Exts.P3 and P5. According to the petitioner, he is an Approved Forest Convener and by Ext.P3, he was called upon to repay an amount of Rs.33,161/-, allegedly towards the excess amount allotted for dragging teakwood. On receipt of Ext.P3, petitioner filed Ext.P4 objection. However, Ext.P5 notice was again issued which is as laconic as Ext.P3. Again petitioner filed Ext.P6 objection. But it is stated without considering the same, repayment is insisted. That led the petitioner to file this writ petition. 3.Irrespective of the merits of the contentions now raised, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that while issuing Ext.P5, none of the objections raised by the petitioner in Ext.P4, filed by him on receipt of Ext.P3, were considered. It was therefore that he again filed Ext.P6 objection which also remains unconsidered. W.P.(C).22169/11 2 4.In such circumstances I direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, second respondent will reconsider the matter in the light of Exts.P4 and P6 and duly adverting to all the contentions raised by the petitioner and fresh orders in the matter will be passed within eight weeks thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs