IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 OP.No. 911 of 1999(H) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- CHINNAPPILLABEEVI, RAJAN WOOD WORKS INDUSTRIES, PUTHENPEEDIKA, NADUKKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILD LIFE, SECRETARAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.1553/1999 IN OP. NO.911/1999 DISMISSED 04/01/2010 SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE PATHANAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT NO.29/98 DTD. 4.1.99. P2:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PATHANAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT NO.A4/8/98 DT. 29.12.1998. P3:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.PR.6742/98 DTD. 10.12.1998 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF STAY OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CMP. 44067/98 IN OP. 25068/98 DT. 16.12.1998. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 911 of 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T 1. The petitioner in this original petition is the owner of a sawmill. Alleging that this court in O.P. Nos.6696/1996 & 22203/1997 directed all sawmills functioning within a radius of 5 kms. from the forest boundary to be closed down, Ext.P3 notice has been issued to the petitioner directing him to close down his sawmill. Ext.P3 order is under challenge before me. Petitioner points out that the judgment in O.P.Nos.6696/1996 and 22203/1997 have been set aside by a Division Bench of this court in W.A. No.1593/1999 and connected cases holding that the prohibition regarding functioning of sawmills within a radius of 5 kms. from a forest boundary issued by the Supreme Court of India in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India (AIR 1997 S.C. 1228) applies only to issue O.P. No. 911 of 1999 -2- a fresh licenses and does not prohibit renewal of license of sawmills which are already in existence within a distance of 5 kms. Petitioner submits that the fact of this case are exactly identical to the facts of the cases involved in W.A. No.1593/1999 and connected cases. Petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: i) call for the records leading to Exhibit P3; ii) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Exhibit P3 and all proceedings pursuant thereto; iii) declare that the petitioner's existing saw mill having been licensed in 1965 is entitled to continue to function and is not affected by the directions stated in Ext.P3; iv) issue an order of interim direction to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P3 to close down the saw mill of the petitioner till the disposal of the original petition. v) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting the respondents from unnecessarily harassing the petitioner in the conduct of the saw mill; vi) issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court find deem fit in the nature and circumstances of the case AND vii) allow this Original Petition with costs. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I have perused the judgment in W.A. No.1593/1999 O.P. No. 911 of 1999 -3- and connected cases. In that judgment a Division Bench of this court has reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.Nos.6696/1996 and 22203/1997. In that decision the Division Bench, after extracting the relief portion in Godavarman Thirumulpad's case, held that the judgment of the Supreme Court does not contain any positive direction by the Supreme Court not to renew the licenses of sawmills which are already in existence within a distance of 5 kms. radius from a reserve forest, vested forest etc. 3. In fact following that Division Bench decision, a learned Single Judge of this court has in O.P. No.4866/1999 quashed a similar notice. I am satisfied that judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No.1593/1999 squarely covers the issue involved in this writ petition. 4. Accordingly Ext.P3 is set aside. However as done by the Division Bench of this court in W.A. No.1593/1999, I hold that the petitioner shall be bound by the various directions given by the Supreme Court and the State O.P. No. 911 of 1999 -4- Government and the Forest Department in the matter of conducting his sawmill. The original petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/