IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 736 of 1999(K) --------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. M.P. MOIDU, PROPRIETOR, TAJ INDUSTRIES (SAW MILL), KANNAMKODE. RESIDING AT MEETHALE PULIYULLA PARUMAATH HOUSE, P.O. PUTHOOR, KANNAMCODE, (VIA) PANOOR, THALASSERY. 2. KUNHIKKANNAN P.P., PROPRIETOR SREEKRISHNA SAW MILL & FURNITURE, RESIDING AT PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, PUTHOOR, (VIA) PANOOR. 3. M.V. SULEKHA, PROPRIETOR, FATHIMA SAW MILL, PARATTU. RESIDING AT THUVAKKUNNU P.O. 670 693. (PEEDIKAYALLA PARAMBATH HOUSE). 4. KUNIYIL AHAMMED HAJI, PROPRIETOR SAJITHA SAW MILL, THUVAKKUNNU. RESIDING AT KUNIYIL HOUSE, P.O. THUVAKKUNNU - 670 693. 5. P.K. BALAKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR SREENARAYANA WOOD INDUSTRIES, POILOOR, RESIDING AT PONNARAMMEL HOUSE, P.O. POILOOR - 670 693. 6. M.E. PRABHAKARAN, PROPIETOR, PRABHA FURNITURE MART & SAW MILL, RESIDING ATVADAKKAYIL POIL HOUSE, P.O. MUTHIYANGA. (DIED) 7. C.P. POULOSE, PROPRIETOR, ST. THOMAS WOOD INDUSTRIES, CHITTANIPARAMBA, RESIDING AT CHALIYELI HOUSE, P.O. CHITTARIPAAMBA. ADDL. PETITIONERS 8 AND 9 IMPLEADED. 8. K. BEENA, W/O. PRABHAKARAN AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT VADAKKAYIL POIL HOUSE, PATTIAM AMSOM, MUTHIYAMGA DESOM, THALASSERY THALUK. 9. M.E. KOUSU, W/O. ANANDAN, AGED 62 YEARS, VADAKKAYIL POIL HOUSE, PATTIAM AMSOM, MUTHIYANGA DESOM, THALASSERY THALUK. ADDL. PETITIONERS 8 & 9 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.14587/03 ON 22.2.2008. BY ADV. SMT.C.V.BINDU RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, KANNUR. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KANDAVAM RANGE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. KUNNOTHPARAMBA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE THRIPPANGOTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR DIST. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. PATTIAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. CHITTARIPARAMBA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR DIST. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJGOPAL BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FORREST) SRI. RENJITH THAMPAN. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 1270 OF 1998 IN O.P. 736 OF 1999. DISMISSED. 22.2.2008. SD/- K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 14.12.1998. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 14.12.98 RECEIVED BY 2ND PETITIONER. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 14.12.98 RECEIVED BY 3RD PETITIONER. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 14.12.98 RECEIVED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 14.12.98 RECEIVED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER. EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 12.98 RECEIVED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER. EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 14.12.98 RECEIVED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 736 of 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are running saw mills, according to them, in terms of the licence issued by the respective Panchayats. They were running the saw mills on the basis of the no-objection certificates issued by the Forest authorities testifying the fact that the saw mills are not situate within 5Kms from the Forest. It appears that there was a public interest litigation and this court directed that no saw mill shall function within 5 Kms of forest area. Accordingly, they have been issued with Exts.P1 to P7 orders to stop the saw mill. According to the petitioners the orders were issued without issuing notice to them. Petitioners call in question Exts.P1 to P7. They also seek a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the business of the petitioners in running the saw mill. 2. There is no counter affidavit filed either by the respondent Panchayat or by any other respondent. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader Sri. Ranjith Thampan. He would point out that the matter engaged the attention of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. 1593 of 1999 and this court by its judgment dated 25.1.2005 took the view that if the saw mills are duly licensed prior to 29.2.2002, no sanction is O.P. 736/1999. 2 required from the Central empowered Committee for renewal of licence. He further submits that for renewal of licence in respect of saw mills located within 5 Kms from the forest area, under G.O.(P) No.93/99/Forest dated 15.11.1999, they need no-objection from the Forest Divisional Officer for the annual renewal every year. He would further submits that in respect of units located beyond five Kms from the forest area, no objection is required from the Forest department every five years. 4. I feel that in this matter as the petitioners 1 to 7 were not heard before Exts.P1 to P7 were issued, they are to be quashed on the ground that the petitioners were not heard. In such circumstances, the Original Petition is allowed and Exts.P1 to P7 are quashed and the first respondent will issue notice to petitioners 1 to 5 and 7 and additional petitioners 8 and 9 and afford them an opportunity of hearing and take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. A decision as aforesaid will be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb O.P. 736/1999. 3 K.M. JOSEPH, J. --------------------------------- O.P. No.736 of 1999 --------------------------------- JUDGMENT 22.2.2008.