IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3670 of 2011(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SUDHEERKUMAR M.V., S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, SOUTH MANAKKAD, KARIVELLUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE,WOOD BASED INDUSTRIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS COVENER, CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, SPECIAL AFFORESTATION NODAL OFFICER,PIN-695001. 4. CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE, (CONSTITUTED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN WPC.NOS.202 OF 1995 AND 171 OF 1996), REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,2ND FLOOR, CHANAKYA BHAVAN, CHANAKYA PURI,NEW DELHI-1. 5. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,MAVUNGAL, KANHANGAD-671 315,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671315. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON 14/02/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3670 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is stated as running a furniture manufacturing unit who applied for and obtained the necessary sanction of the concerned local authority. On the strength of the licence so issued by the local authority, the petitioner was operating the said unit from the year 2005 onwards. It is also stated that the unit is being operated by the petitioner under a scheme of the Khadi Board. 2. The 6th respondent brought to the notice of the petitioner that the petitioner could not run the unit unless and until the 'No Objection Certificate' was obtained from 3rd respondent. It was in the said circumstance that the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 application before the third respondent. The petitioner has approached this Court for giving a direction to the third respondent to finalise Ext.P2. 3. The learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the concerned respondents submits on instruction, that quite a number of applications are pending consideration before the third respondent; that all the applications received till 30/11/2009 have W.P.(C) No.3670/2011 - 2 - already been considered for final orders (subject to concurrence of the fourth respondent) as per the proceedings held on 20/10/2010 and that the application preferred by the petitioner also will be considered in the due course. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the permission to continue 'status quo' in respect of the saw mills could only be for such units which were in operation prior to 30/10/2002. 4. In the instant case, the petitioner's unit is a 'furniture unit'. This Court finds it fit and proper to have the matter disposed of directing the third respondent to consider Ext.P2 and to pass appropriate orders thereon; more so, in view of the submission made that similar course has already been pursued in similar cases, also granting direction to maintain 'status quo' till such time. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, subject to seniority. However, it is made clear that the 'status quo' as on date shall continue till such time. Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON vdv JUDGE