IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18825 of 2011(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. ELSY THOMAS, W/O.LATE K.J.JOSEPH, KARIPAPARAMBIL SAW MILL, ERUMELI P.O. KOTTAYAM - 686 520. 2. JOY JACOB, S/O.CHACKO APREM, KULATHUPURAYIDOM (PROPRIETOR, ST.MARY'S SAW MILL, CHENAPADY), KOTTAYAM - 686 520. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, (SPECIAL AFFORESTATION) & NODAL OFFICER FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTTAYAM - 686 520. 3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, ERUMELI, KOTTAYAM - 686 520. R1 TO R3 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M.POULOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18825/2011 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PANCHAYAT LICENCE DTD.24/07/1991. P2: COPY OF THE PANCHAYAT LICENCE DTD.24/11/94. P3: COPY OF THE PANCHAYAT LICENCE FOR 2002-03 DTD. 17/08/2002. P3(A): COPY OF THE LICENCE DTD. 10/03/2006 FOR 2006-07. P3(B): COPY OF THE LICENCE FOR 2010-11 DTD. 12/08/2010. P3(C): COPY OF THE CURRENT LICENCE DTD. 7/05/2011 VALID UPTO 31/03/2012. P4: COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT DTD. 4/05/2011. P5: COPY OF THE SSI REGISTRATION DTD. 10/06/92. P6: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE LICENCE FEE FOR THE PERIOD 2002-03 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT. P7: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DTD. 21/05/2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERUMELI EAST VILLAGE. P8: COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DTD. 17/12/2010. P9: COPY OF INSPECTION REPORT DTD. 26/04/2010. P10: COPY OF STOP MEMO DTD. 8/07/2011 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P10(A): COPY OF STOP MEMO DTD. 8/07/2011 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 18825 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T There are two writ petitioners here. They are aggrieved by Exts.P10 and P10(a) issued by the Forest Range Officer, the 3rd respondent. 2. In so far as the first petitioner is concerned Ext.P2 is a licence issued by the Panchayath as early as on 24.11.94. Ext.P3, Ext.P3(a), Ext.P3(b) and Ext.P3(c) indicates that the licence remains valid even during 2011 - 2012. Meanwhile, the first petitioner made application for NOC and Ext.P4 is the verification report. This report also indicates the existence of the saw mill prior to 30.10.2002. At that stage, while the application was pending before the first respondent, Ext.P10 notice was issued directing to close down the saw mill. W.P.(C) No. 18825 OF 2011 :2 : 3. So far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, Ext.P5 is the certificate issued, registering the saw mill as a SSI unit. This certificate is dated 10.6.92. Ext.P8 is the receipt issued on behalf of the first respondent, acknowledging that the 2nd petitioner has made application for NOC. On that application verification has been conducted and the report is Ext.P9. This report also indicates that the saw mill of the 2nd petitioner was in existence even prior to 30.10.2002. It is while that application is pending Ext.P10(a) notice of closure was issued. 4. Therefore, prima facie, the aforesaid materials indicate the existence of the Units prior to 30.10.2002. The applications made by the petitioners for NOC are also pending before the 2nd respondent. It was at that stage the above referred impugned notices were issued on the ground that for want of NOC Units have to be close down. W.P.(C) No. 18825 OF 2011 :3 : Having regard to the above, I feel that the notices issued at the stage when the applications for NOC were pending consideration, particularly since the Units were in existence even prior to 30.10.2002, were unwarranted. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to pass orders on the applications made by the petitioner for NOC in light of Exts.P4 and P9 verification reports. There will be a further direction that until the above said orders are passed, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge