IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15044 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- GEYOMOL K.SASI, W/O.SASI K.T, KOLLAPPILLIL PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, SELLIAMPARA,VELLATHOOVAL P.O.,IDUKKI DIST BY ADV. MR. M.C.JOHN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SPECIAL AFFORESTATION & NODAL OFFICER, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS,TVM-695001 2. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (I & E) KOTTAYAM PIN-686001 3. THE DIVISINAL FOREST OFFICER,MUNNAR, DEVIKULAM-PIN-685602 4. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, DEVIKULAM-PIN-685602 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BENNY VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 15044 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE NO. M7-7900/01 DATED 14.02.2003. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF LICENCE FOR 2011 - 12 DATED 20.04.2011 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE SSI REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 14.07.2008 EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 10.01.2011 EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 03.06.2011 PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 0306.2011 EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M7-8315/2003 DATED 28.05.2011 OF THR 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.09.2004 IN W.PC.(C) NO. 17502 / 2004. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No . 15044 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 14th June , 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the interference made by the departmental authorities, whereby operation of the plywood factory of the petitioner has sought to be closed down, notwithstanding Ext. P1 NOC issued by the 3rd respondent and further when the application seeking for the renewal of the NOC by the concerned authority, in tune with the observations made by the Supreme Court on the point is pending consideration. 2. When the matter came up for consideration of this Court on 03.06.2011, the learned Government Pleader was asked to get instructions also granting interim order of 'status quo'. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondent has paid absolutely scant regards to the interim order passed by this Court and that the possession of the Unit was taken over and the same was sealed on 03..06.2011 as evident from Ext. P5 proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, he has got every right to continue the operation of Unit, which in fact was started much prior to the verdict passed by the Supreme Court on 30.12.2002, though Ext. P1 N.O.C is dated 14.02.2003.. The learned counsel for the petitioner W.P. (C) No. 15044 of 2011 : 2 : places reliance on the said NOC and also the verdict passed by this Court vide Ext. P8 in W.P(C) 17502 of 2004. The said writ petition was filed challenging the order of cancellation of NOC given to the petitioner. The contention before this Court in that case was that the impugned order was issued by the concerned respondent without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it was the sole reason for setting aside the said order, making it clear that, it would not bar the concerned respondent in taking a fresh decision. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, after passing Ext. P8 verdict on 09.09.2004, nothing was transpired for nearly 4 years and now the respondents have taken steps to have the Unit closed down. 3. Going by the materials on record, it is very much evident that, Ext. P1 NOC was issued only on 14.02.2003. In the opening paragraph itself, it is stated that, the land was actually belonging to somebody else and it was on the basis of a rental agreement, the land was taken by the petitioner for a period of 5 years, from 01.11.2002 to 31.10.2007. This means, the said land itself was made available only after passing the verdict by the Supreme Court on 30.10.2002. 4. In Ext. P7 order dated 28.05.2011 passed by the 3rd respondent, the observation of the Supreme Court in the verdict passed on 30.10.2002 in W.P. (C) Nos. 202 of 1995 and 171 of 1996 has been W.P. (C) No. 15044 of 2011 : 3 : extracted in the following terms: “No State or Union Territory shall permit any unlicensed saw- mills, veneer, plywood industry to operate and they are directed to close all such unlicensed unit forthwith. No State Government or Union Territory will permit the opening of any saw-mill, veneer or plywood industry without prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee. The Chief Secretary of each State will ensure strict compliance of this direction. There shall also be no relaxation of rules with regard to the grant of license without previous concurrence of the Central Empowered Committee.” 5. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner obtained the SSI registration only on 14.11.2008, as borne by Ext. P3 certificate, which also throws some light as to the commencement of the operation. It is mentioned therein that the “activity has commenced from 20.11.2004”. 6. Coming to the scope of Ext. P8 judgment passed by this Court, the challenge therein was against the cancellation of NOC, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it was in the said circumstances, that the impugned order was set aside giving appropriate direction to the concerned respondent to pass fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. Going by the facts and figures, it is very much evident that no authority could have issued NOC after the authoritative pronouncement W.P. (C) No. 15044 of 2011 : 4 : of the law by the Supreme Court on 30.10.2002 in the case cited supra, except in the manner as specified therein. This being the position, Ext. P1 NOC issued by the 3rd respondent on 14.02.2003 is absolutely without any authority and rights do flow out therefrom. In the above circumstances, this Court does find any reason to interfere with Ext. P7 proceedings. The Writ Petition fails. It is dismissed accordingly. This however will not stand in the way of the petitioner in pursuing further steps on the application preferred by the petitioner before the Central Empowerment Committee, as borne by Ext. P4. It is for the said Committee to consider the application preferred by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge