IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 11026 of 2009(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SHAFEEK. K., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. KASIM RAWTHER, THUNDATHUVILAYIL, THEKKETHIL (KOOTTAM VETTIYIL), POOZHIKKADU MURI, KUDASSANADU P.O., PANDALAM, KURAMPALA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADVS. MR. K.SHAJ, MR.SAJJU.S. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, PANDALAM PANCHAYATH, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. ABRAHAM VARGHESE, KAIPPANPLACKAL HOUSE, POOZHIKADU, KUDASSANADU P.O., PANDALAM. R1 BY ADVS. MR.SIBY MATHEW, MR.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU, MR.B.PREMNATH (E), R2 BY ADV. MR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.11026/2009-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT IN W.P.(C). NO.34527/2007 DTD. 19/02/2008. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE FORGED CONSENT LETTER PREPARED BY THE R.2. AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 20/11/2008 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. AND 10 OTHERS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.11026 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The second respondent who was conducting a saw mill stands interdicted from running it without the sanction of the Central Empowered Committee. After the judgment Ext.P1, the petitioner who was not a party to that writ petition, complains that a fabricated document shown to be his consent has been produced by the second respondent, to attain DLO licence from the first respondent. 2.Refuting this, learned counsel for the second respondent says that his client is not running a shop in view of the embargo created by law, owing to the requirement of the clearance of the Central Empowered Committee. The first respondent panchayat has also come on record stating that without the sanction of the Central Empowered Committee, no activities can be carried on in the saw mill in question. Therefore, the WPC.11026/09 Page numbers only anxiety of the petitioner, as of now, is the so called consent which is shown to have been given by him. 3.With the aforesaid, all that is required is that the first respondent shall not make use of the consent that is shown to have been issued by the petitioner as due consent for any application of the second respondent for DLO licence. No other issues relating to the grant of licence arises for consideration before the second respondent gets clearance of the Central Empowered Committee. Hence, all such issues are left open and the writ petition is disposed of directing that the first respondent shall not treat any consent that is shown to have been issued by the petitioner and is available in the files of the first respondent in connection with any application for licence as made by the second respondent as valid. The same will be treated as nonest. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.24/7.