IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33201 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. K.SANTHOSH,S/O.N.M.KUNHIKRISHNAN GURUKKAL,M/S.PALIYANA LAMINATES, PALIYANA, THARUVANA,WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. NISHAD.M.A,S/O.M.S.ABDU, M/S.FIDHA TIMBER INDUSTRIES,KARAKKAMALA, MANANTHAVADY,WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ SMT.P.A.SHEEJA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS(SPECIAL AFFORESTATION) & NODAL OFFICER & CONVENER,STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR WOOD BASED INDUSTRIES,FOREST HEAD QUARTERS,VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MANANTHAWADY,WAYANAD 670 645. 3. VELLAMUNDA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,VELLAMUNDA PO, WAYANAD 670731 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 33201 OF 2010 (A) ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Exts.P3 and P3(a) are the NOCs that were issued to the petitioners wood based industries. These NOS authorised the petitioners to process only rubber wood. On the allegation that other soft wood were also used in violation of the NOCs, petitioners were issued Exts.P4 and P4(a) show cause notices. Exts.P5 and P5(a) are the replies filed, which confirms the allegations in Exts.P4 and P4(a) show cause notices. While so, the petitioners also submitted Exts.P6 and P6(a) representations to the 1st respondent to allow them to process other species of timber also. These applications are pending. During the pendency of these applications, Exts.P7 and P7(a) orders have been issued in pursuance to the show cause notices and replies submitted by the petitioners. By these orders, Exts.P3 and P3(a) NOCs have been cancelled. It is challenging Exts.P7 and P7(a), the writ petition has been filed. 2. Although the learned senior counsel for the petitioners canvassed that there was no deliberate violation of the terms of WPC No. 33201/10 :2 : the NOC, still fact remains that NOCs granted as per Exts.P3 and P3(a) authorised processing of only rubber wood. The specific allegation which has been found against the petitioners, and which in fact is not seriously disputed also is that, other species of timber also were processed. If that be so, as at present, the petitioners cannot impugn Exts.P7 and P7(a). 3. However, fact remains that realising the mistake, petitioners have made Exts.P6 and P6(a) seeking permission for processing of the species of soft wood also. These applications are pending. Therefore, necessarily, these applications will have to be considered by the 1st respondent. 4. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P6 and P6(a) as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that if the orders on Exts.P6 and P6(a) are allowing these applications, it will be open to the petitioners to move the authorities seeking reinstatement of Exts.P3 and P3 (a) NOCs as well. 5. Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. WPC No. 33201/10 :3 : It is made clear that the observations made herein above is only for issuing the aforesaid direction and are not made on the validity of Exts.P7 and P7(a). ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp