IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5712 of 2009(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- CHACKO BABY, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 53, VANDANAKKARA HOUSE, EAST MARADY P.O. MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CONSERVATOR FORESTS, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 5712 of 2009 H ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:- “(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exts.P4 and P8; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to restore Ext.P1 (No Objection Certificate) to the petitioner, duly allowing him to conduct the workshop.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cancellation of Ext.P1 'No Objection Certificate' given to the petitioner for running the small scale furniture unit by the third respondent as per Ext.P4 order dated 31-11-2006 and Ext.P8 order passed by the second respondent confirming the cancellation are not correct or sustainable, in view of the subsequent developments as narrated in the pleadings and W.P.(C) No.5712/2009 : 2 : proceedings produced before this Court, including the verdicts passed by this Court as well as the 'Trial court' with regard to the issue involved. 3. The sequence of events narrated in the writ petition shows that, while the petitioner was conducting the furniture unit as above based on Ext.P1 NOC issued by the third respondent, an inspection was conducted on 17-03-2005 and O.R.No.3/2005 was registered in respect of the offences under Sections 39 and 40 of the Kerala Forest Act. It is stated that on the same day, FIR No.168/2005 was also registered in respect of the various offences under IPC alleging that the petitioner wilfully obstructed the officials from discharging their statutory duties. Met with this situation, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.17268/2007, wherein a statement was filed from the part of the respondents, stating that they had already filed Ext.P5 final report before the Magistrate's Court deciding to withdraw the O.R. In such circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file a representation W.P.(C) No.5712/2009 : 3 : before the Conservator of Forest and giving appropriate direction to the Conservator to consider the application with regard to the NOC sought for. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the course of the proceedings, the case before the Magistrate's Court also ended in acquittal in respect of the offences under IPC as revealed from Ext.P11 judgment produced along with I.A.No.13331/2010. It is stated that the petitioner was not aware of the 'order of confiscation' dated 14-08-2007, stated as passed, as revealed from Ext.P5 final report. Later, the petitioner, on application, obtained a copy and challenged the same by filing CMA before the concerned court which happened to be dismissed. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CRP No.422/2010 and after considering the merits involved, the same was allowed as per Ext.P12. The matter stands remanded to the third respondent for fresh consideration. 5. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the prayer of the W.P.(C) No.5712/2009 : 4 : petitioner to issue NOC, in view of the setting aside of the order of confiscation and also in view of the acquittal in the criminal case, is rather wrong and misconceived, being contrary to the actual facts and figures. It is pointed out that Ext.P1 NOC was issued subject to following conditions:- “ 1. The work unit will keep a detailed account of timber purchased, disposed and utilised. 2. He will submit the monthly account of such timber to this office and Range Office, Kothamangalam. 3. He will show the account to any inspecting authority when called for to do so at any point of time.” The factual position with regard to the non submission of the monthly account and such other details was considered by the third respondent while passing Ext.P4, which was confirmed by the second respondent on the basis of the materials on record, as per Ext.P8. concerned authority and passed Ext.P8 order. The mere fact that the order of confiscation stands set aside and remanded for non W.P.(C) No.5712/2009 : 5 : compliance of Section 61B or the acquittal by the trial court in respect of the offences under the IPC will not absolve the petitioner from the liability to have satisfied the specific conditions stipulated in the NOC. This Court finds considerable force in the said submission; more so, when no material to controvert the same has been produced before this Court as well, in spite of a bald claim in Ext.P3. 6. In view of the remand ordered by this Court, the third respondent is directed to finalise the proceedings as ordered in Ext.P12 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It is open to the petitioner to pursue the matter further if the decision turns to be in favour of the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge