IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4821 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.P.KUNHIKOYA THANGAL, S/O.POOKOYA THANGAL, PROPRIETOR, HARITHA TIMBER & SAW MILL, NANGEELIKANDY, KUTYADI P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS & NODEL OFFICER, SPECIAL AFFORESTATION, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -14. 2. THE STATE LEVEL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY CONVENOR, FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. Addl. Advocate General Sri. Renjith Thampan THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.4821 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT The prayer mainly sought for in this writ Petition is to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's application for NOC registered at Sl.No.172 in Schedule-I as mentioned in Ext.P9 and to pass orders accordingly. There is a further prayer to direct the respondents not to include the petitioner's application in any other schedule. 2. The controversy is in relation to the application for NOC filed by the petitioner. Initially, the petitioner had made the application to the Central Empowered Committee in 2004. That was included at Sl. No.414 as is seen from Ext.P6. However, subsequently the same was forwarded to the State Level Empowered Committee and from Ext.P9 it is seen that the application was included at Sl.No.172 of Schedule-1. It is on that basis the petitioner is seeking a WP(c).No.4821/09 2 direction for its consideration in the manner as stated above. 3. The Addl. Advocate General has obtained instructions in this matter. According to him out of 216 applications which were forwarded to the State Level Empowered Committee, on an enquiry made it was found at 179 units were in relation to pre 2002 establishments and in respect of such establishments, NOC has already been issued. In so far as the remaining ones including that of the petitioner it was found to be post 2002 establishments and therefore those applications have been included in schedule No.4. It is stated that on that basis orders will be passed. 4. However, it is the specific case of the petitioner that his unit has been in existence since 1995 and Ext.P1 no objection certificate issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kozhikode carrying No.T 755/95 is referred in in support of this contention. Yet another material relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is Ext.P7, the affidavit filed by the Resident Commissioner on behalf of the State Government before the WP(c).No.4821/09 3 Central Empowered Committee where in para-1 it is stated that the petitioner had started erection of the Saw Mill after getting NOC from the Kerala Forest Department as per T- 755/1995, which is Ext.P1 referred to above. It is also to be noticed that having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already constructed the building and acquired certificate and installed the machineries availing of loans, the case of the petitioner was recommended for favourable consideration by the Central Empowered Committee. 5. It is in these circumstances, contention is raised that the establishment has been in existence prior to 2002. However, this is a matter for the State Level Empowered Committee to consider and a pronouncement on this issue is necessary in this proceedings. This is in view of the admitted fact that the application made by the petitioner is still pending without any orders. 6. Therefore, I direct that it is open to the petitioner to produce a copy of Exts.P1 and P7 along with a copy of this WP(c).No.4821/09 4 judgment before the State Level Empowered Committee and thereafter the State Level Empowered Committee shall take a final decision on the application made by the petitioner for NOC. An order shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.4821/09 5