IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 29075 of 2010(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.M.VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, M/S. NIRAVATH INDUSTRIES, MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KATTAPPANA. BY ADVS. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SRI.S. RAJMOHAN, SMT. DEEPTHI ROSE.J. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANRUM. 2. THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR (SPECIAL AFORESTATION) AND NODAL OFFICER, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR WOOD BASED INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29075 of 2010 H ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P17 order passed by the Convenor of the State Level Committee for wood based industries in Kerala. According to the petitioner, attached to the wood based furniture unit, he is also having sawing facility. On the basis that the saw mill was without any licence, the NOC issued by the Forest Department was cancelled, which led to the filing of W.P. (C) No.25/2010. That writ petition was dismissed, relegating the petitioner to pursue his grievances before the State Level Committee. 2. Against the said judgment, petitioner filed W.A.No.135/2010 before this Court. That Writ Appeal was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment, permitting the petitioner to move the State Level Committee, within a time fixed in the said judgment. It was also directed that subject to the filing of the application before the State Level Committee, status quo will be continued. 3. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application WPC.29075/10 : 2 : to the State Level Committee. As directed in Ext.P1 judgment, his prayer for interim order on the application is rejected by Ext.P17. It is challenging Ext.P17, this writ petition is filed. 4. Reading of Ext.P17 order shows that the reason given by the State Level Committee to reject the prayer for interim relief was that the petitioner failed to produce copies of any valid licence issued by the competent authorities to show that the saw mill was functioning prior to 30-10-2002. 5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has established the sawing facility only for the purpose of his wood based furniture unit and the saw mill is not catering to the requirements of the general public. Even if the sawing facility has been established for the wood based furniture unit of the petitioner itself, fact remains that such a saw mill could not have been established without any licence. Petitioner has produced Exts.P12 and P13 which are the licences issued by various authorities. All these show that licence was issued only for the establishment of wood based furniture unit and there is no mention of any saw mill. True, the petitioner has produced WPC.29075/10 : 3 : Exts.P7 and P14 communications issued by the forest authorities indicating existence of sawing facility. However, that does not by itself, legitimise the existence of the saw mill in the absence of any licence. Therefore, petitioner did not produce documentary evidence to establish the existence of sawmill prior to 30-10-2002 in which event only the provision requiring NOC is inapplicable. In such circumstances, Ext.P17 cannot be faulted. In that view of the matter, I am not persuaded to interfere with Ext.P17. 6. According to the petitioner, he has licences for the furniture unit and despite the same, forest authorities have closed down the furniture unit also. In that view of the matter, I direct that if the petitioner possesses all licences, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the fourth respondent in which event, the fourth respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks