IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1668 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26842/2011 Dated 24/10/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ RASHEED,AGED 56 YEARS,S/O.PAREETHKHAN, KAYYA MANZIL HOUSE,EDAPALLY BYE PASS, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.JOHN VIPIN SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,MALAYATTOOR, KODANADU.P.O,PIN-683544. 2. ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-682 030. MR.JAMES KURIAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag.CJ. & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J. .................................................................... W.A. No.1668 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 8th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. Question raised in the Writ Appeal is whether NOC for appellant's saw mill has to be issued by the State Level Empowered Committee constituted under orders of the Supreme Court or whether it should be granted by the Divisional Forest Officer. Appellant's case is that DFO is the authority to issue NOC because the saw mill was started in 1989 and the same was only purchased by the appellant in 2002 with the licence and NOC. So much so, it is not a new licence issued in 2003 and therefore NOC can be issued by the DFO, is the contention of the appellant's counsel. Learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that since the first NOC issued by the Forest Department was only in 2003, the DFO forfeited the right to W.A.No.1668/2011 2 renew or issue fresh NOC and the work is now entrusted to the State Level Empowered Committee constituted under orders of the Supreme Court of India. We do not think the appellant has any grievance because the NOC in any case is required to be obtained whether it from the DFO or from the Empowered Committee constituted at State Level at Thiruvananthapuram. The respondents have furnished the address of the Empowered Committee to the appellant to apply for the same. 2. After hearing both sides, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge because the appellant can apply for and obtain NOC from the State Level Empowered Committee constituted under orders of the Supreme Court of India and presently functioning at Thiruvananthapuram. However, since the mill is functioning from 1989 onwards and the appellant is presently owning the mill, which is in the Cochin Corporation far away from forest area, we direct the respondents to permit the appellant to run the saw mill for three weeks. In between the appellant can make proper application before the State Level Empowered W.A.No.1668/2011 3 Committee for issuance of NOC. If a proper application is filed and a copy of the same is submitted to the 1st respondent, then NOC already issued will continue to be in force and the appellant can run the mill until final orders are issued by the State Level Empowered Committee before which the application is filed as above. The State Level Empowered Committee is directed to process the application and if any objection is there against issuance of NOC, the same should be communicated and the appellant should be heard before adverse order, if any, is issued. On the other hand, if on the basis of application NOC can be issued, then the Committee should straight away issue NOC to the appellant. This Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jg