IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18836 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. M.G. ABRAHAM, NEDUMPURATH SAW MILL PRESENTLY VIPIN TIMBERS, VENKURINJI, MUKKOTTUTHARAR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. JOSEPH.M, MANIMALETH SAW MILL, MANIMALETH HOUSE, VECHOOCHIRA.P.O, CHETHACKAL VILLAGE, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA 3. JOJI MATHEW, MALAYAKUDIYIL HOUSE, MATHIRAPPILLY.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 691, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS SPECIAL AFFORESTATION AND NODAL OFFICER, CONVENER, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE, KERALA, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 3. CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE, REP. BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY, GATE NO.31, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI -110 003. 4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645. WPC NO.18836/11 -2- 5. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM - 689 645. 6. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645. 7. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM - 686 691. ADV. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, CGC FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.M.POULOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.18836/11 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE D&O LICENSE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF BRIJTHAMMA ABRAHAM BY THE VECHURCHIRA PANCHAYATH FOR THE YEAR 1989-90. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOC GRANTED DURING 1994 BY THE FOREST DEPARTMENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OEPRATE FROM THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER VALID UPTO 30/6/12. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY of THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED by the ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOAD, VECHOOCHIRA REGARDING THE DATE OF CONNECTION. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED by the SECRETARY VECHOOCHIRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REGARDING THE D&O LICENCE DURIGN 1994-95 DT 17.2.1999. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY of THE D&O LICENSE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF VASU ACHARI FOR THE YEAR 1974-75 ISSUED BY THE KOTHAMANGALAM PANCHAYATH DT.1.11.1974. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED by the GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM DT 3.96. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DT 2.7.11 REGARDING THE OWNERSHIP. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF VRIFICATION REPROT NO.FC(3) 598/2010 FOR NOC ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DT 27.4.11. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY of THE VERIFICATION REPORT NO.FC93) 4798/2010 FOR NOC ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DT 27.4.11. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT DT 17.3.1020 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 3.5.11 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING NOC. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 4.7.11 by the 6TH AND 7TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 1.7.11 by the 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 18836 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 21st day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners submit that they are owners of saw mills, which according to them has been in existence for the last several years. 2. Irrespective of the claims made, it is seen that the first petitioner has made an an application before the 2nd respondent for NOC and the verification report of which is Ext.P9. In so far as the second petitioner is concerned, he too made an application for NOC and the verification report is Ext.P10. In so far as the third petitioner is concerned, Ext.P11 is the receipt issued from the office of the 2nd respondent on 17/3/2010, acknowledging receipt of the application made by him for the NOC. It is not clear whether verification on his application has been done. 3. Thus, it is obvious that the applications for NOC made by the petitioners are pending consideration of the 2nd respondent and it is for the 2nd respondent to consider the application and pass orders on the NOCs applied for by the petitioners. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed WPC No. 18836/11 :2 : of directing the 2nd respondent to consider th applications made by the petitioners and pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp