IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27353 of 2010(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JOSE K.K., ROYSON TIMBER & BAND SAW MILL, KANDASSANKADAVU, KARAMUKKU, MANALUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS, SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CHIEF CONSRVATOR OF FORESTS, (SPECIAL AFFORESTATION) & NODAL OFFICER, CONVENOR, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE, KEARLA, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 014. 2. CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE, REP.BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY, GATE NO.31, JAWAHARALA NEHRU STADIUM, LOADI ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 003. 3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 4. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, THRISSUR. R1, R3 & R4 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.27353 of 2010 (T) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, he started a saw mill way back in 1978. It is stated that initially the saw mill was located in the premises of St.Mary’s Forane Church, Kandassankadavu, Thrissur. He had shifted the saw mill and located it at the present premises. It is stated that however when Ext.P9 proceedings were issued by the State Level Empowered Committee, the Committee, included the petitioner’s saw mill in Schedule IV on the basis that the saw mill was started after 30/10/2002. The petitioner states that since his saw mill was started way back in 1978, the mill could not have been scheduled in the manner as done in Ext.P9. It is seen that highlighting this contention, he has filed Ext.P10 representation before the 1st respondent. If as stated by the petitioner, actually the saw mill was started prior to 2002 and if there are materials to substantiate the said contention, necessarily, Ext.P9 calls for a review. Now that Ext.P10 WP(C) No.27353/2010 -2- representation is pending before the 1st respondent, I direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P10 representation in the light of the materials made available by the petitioner and pass orders in the matter. This the 1st respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg