IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3519 of 2009(R) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDURASAK PROPRIETOR, KANJIRALA WOOD INDUSTRIES KANJIRALA, THAZHATHANGADIYIL,AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY MR.SRINATH GIRISH ADV. MR.E.NARAYANAN- ADV. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE AREACODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DT. 2. THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR SPECIAL AFFORESTATION) CONVENOR, STATE EMPOWERED COMMITTEE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.3519 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is conducting a saw mill. Since it is within five kilometres from the Forest, the petitioner is obliged to produce a No Objection Certificate from the Forest Department. The petitioner originally obtained one and on the strength of the same, the Panchayat had issued a licence, which was renewed from time to time. The renewed licence was valid upto February, 2008. The petitioner filed an application for NOC before the 2nd respondent, which is produced as Ext.P6 to enable him to apply for renewal of licence. That was on 8.9.2008. The 2nd respondent has not considered it yet. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent is threatening the petitioner with closure of the saw mill on the ground that he has not produced the NOC from the 2nd respondent. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: W.P.(c)No.3519/09 2 “a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction, directing the 1 st respondent to keep all coercive action against the petitioner's unit in pursuance of Ext.P5 and P8 in abeyance until the 2 nd respondent hears and disposes of Ext.P6 application and issues No- Objection Certificate to the petitioner and the petitioner is able to apply for licence; b) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction, directing the 2 nd respondent to consider and pass orders in Ext.P6 application and issue No-Objection Certificate to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible”. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. In the nature of the order I propose to pass I do not propose to issue notice to the 1st respondent at this juncture. When the petitioner has submitted an application for NOC, the Committee competent to consider the same had a duty to consider and pass orders on the same expeditiously. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent is the Convenor of the Committee. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to place Ext.P6 application before the Committee and the Committee shall take a decision on the application for NOC submitted by the W.P.(c)No.3519/09 3 petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd