IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21830 of 2011(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.J. ABRAHAM, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 59 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, MANGALY SAW MILL, PANAYAMPADOM, KARIMBA P.O., MANNARGHAT TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 597. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, (SPECIAL AFORESTATION & NODAL OFFICER), CONVENOR, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKKAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 4. CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE, REP. BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY, GATE NO.31, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003. 5. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, FOREST DIVISION, MANNARKKADU, PALAKKAD DIST-678 582. 6. KARIMBA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KARIMBA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 597. R1 TO R3 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BENNY VARGHESE. R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG. OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 21830 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LICENCE FEE DEMAND REGISTER (EXTRACT) OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 1998-99. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LICENCE FEE DEMAND REGISTER (EXTRACT) OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2000-2001. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LICENCE FEE DEMAND REGISTER (EXTRACT) OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2001-2002. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS, KOZHIKODE, VALID UPTO 31/12/1998. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE N.O.C. DATED 07/09/2005. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 08/08/2008 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 20/11/2000 FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31/03/2011. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 11/07/2011. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT DATED 26/05/2009. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21/12/2009. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/05/2009 ISSUED BY THE ASST. ENGINEER, KSEB. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/07/2011 OF 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/07/2011 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/06/2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 21830 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has initially established a saw mill and according to him, subsequently a peeling unit was also added. He is presently aggrieved by Ext.P14 communication issued by the 6th respondent, stating that in view of Ext.P13, the licence has been cancelled. 2. Ext.P13, referred to above, is the communication issued by the 5th respondent requesting the 6th respondent to explain how in the absence of an NOC, licence could be issued to the petitioner. It is in pursuance to that communication, Ext.P14 was issued cancelling the licence on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained NOC from the 3rd respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the Unit has been established long prior to 30.10.2002 and that he made an application for NOC which has been acknowledged by Ext.P9 receipt. It is also stated that on the application submitted, W.P.(C) No. 21830 OF 2011 :2 : verification was conducted and Ext.P10 is the verification report. It is thus stated that NOC application is pending consideration of the authorities and it is at that stage his licence has been cancelled leading to the closure of the saw mill itself. 4. Materials produced by the petitioner prima facie discloses that the unit was in existence long prior to 30.10.2002. It is also obvious that the petitioner has got licence issued by the Panchayath and other authorities and on the application for NOC, the verification has been completed and the matter is pending consideration of the authorities. In my view, on account of the facts as state above, issuance of Exts.P13 and 14 orders resulting in the cancellation of licence of the petitioner's unit was unwarranted, at his stage. 5. Therefore I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions. 6. The 3rd respondent before whom the petitioner's NOC application is pending shall consider the said application in the light of Ext.P10 verification report and W.P.(C) No. 21830 OF 2011 :3 : take a decision thereon and communicate the same to the petitioner. It is directed that until the said process is completed, status quo prior to Exts.P13 and 14 orders shall be continued, provided the activities in the industrial unit will be confined to those permitted in the licence issued by the Panchayath. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-