IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13317 of 2009(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ASGAR, S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 39 YEARS, FARM HOUSE, PARASUVAIKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA VIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF FOREST & WILD LIFE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CUSTODIAN OF ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE LANDS AND PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMN.), FOREST HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NANMARA, NANMARA FOREST DIVISION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KOLLENGODE FOREST RANGE OFFICE, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.13317 of 2009-H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.This writ petition is filed challenging Rule 3(1) of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Tribunal Rules, 2007. The premise of the attack is that it inhibits the right to initiate proceedings before the Kerala Forest Tribunal under Section 10 of the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003. The issue in hand is directly covered by the judgment dated 26th May, 2008 in WP(C).No.14121/2008 and connected cases delivered by my learned brother Mr.Justice S.Siri Jagan in which the learned Judge has categorically stated that Section 10 does not specifically refer to any decision of the custodian at all and what is stipulated therein is not regulated by Rule 3 since a rule cannot override the section in the Act. It was also laid WP(C)13317/09 -: 2 :- down in that judgment that an application under Section 10 would lie in respect of disputes. Those writ petitions were dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners therein to file application under Section 10 before the Tribunal. 2.The writ petition in hand is essentially, therefore, an empty exercise in as much as repeated declarations of law by the High Court are not necessary in every individual case. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that on the face of Rule 3, the Tribunal may not entertain the application under Section 10. This apprehension is totally misplaced because, if a reliable copy of the judgment referred to above is placed before the Tribunal, there is no reason why the Tribunal will not advert to that judgment and guide itself in deciding the question of maintainability of the application under Section 10. As a matter of fact, I have noticed that different matters are being filed on the same WP(C)13317/09 -: 3 :- premise, though, all that is required is, to move the Tribunal and if that authority doubts its jurisdiction on some issue, to place materials to demonstrate the jurisdiction, including by relying on the judgment referred to above. It does not require a passport being issued by this Court and requiring the petitioner to move that court. This was not what was done in the judgment referred to above. All that was done was the right, if any, of the petitioners therein to move the Tribunal was preserved without being curtailed by the dismissal of those writ petitions. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an application under Section 10 before the Tribunal as provided in the said section. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/260509