IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 133 of 2010 ---------- -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26/2010 Dated 20/01/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- M/S.P.V.S.TIMBERS,CHERUTHONY, VAZHATHOPE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,JIJI VARGHESE. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE VAZHATHOPE GRAMA PANCHAYATH,VAZHATHOPE, IDUKKI DIST, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY. 3. SHRI.RUBY ABRAHAM, VAZHAMBATHOTTATHIL, KATTAPPANA SOUTH P.O., IDUKKI. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.H.ANIL KUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010 ALONG WITH WA NOS.134 & 135 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kurian Joseph, Ag. C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.Nos.133, 134 & 135 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, Ag. C.J. Appellants are the writ petitioners. They approached this Court aggrieved by the orders passed by the Divisional Forest Officer cancelling the No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted to them for running wood based industries. The cancellation was made on the ground that the Divisional Forest Officer who granted the NOC was not competent to issue the NOC and it is the State Level Empowered Committee (State Level Committee for wood based industries in Kerala) which is competent to grant NOC in view of the decision of the apex Court in Godavarman Thirumulpad's case (2002 (9) SCALE). 2. One of the main contentions taken in the writ petitions was that the cancellation was made without notice. It was also contended that the industries did not require NOC from the State Level Empowered Committee since they had been in existence prior to 30.10.2002, the date of decision of the apex Court. The learned Single W.A.No.133 of 2010, etc. - 2 - Judge turned down both the contentions and dismissed the writ petitions. Hence the writ appeals. 3. According to the learned senior counsel, the learned Single Judge patently erred in entering a factual finding that the industries of the appellants/writ petitioners started only after 2002 on the only ground that the applications for licence were filed only thereafter. It is submitted that even going by the report of the Range Officer and also the Grama Panchayat, it can be seen that the industries had been functioning since decades, and in any case prior to 2002. It is further contended that, at any rate, even assuming that the Divisional Forest Officer was not competent to grant NOC, before cancelling the NOC already granted, being a running concern, notice should have been issued. 4. Learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the party respondent pointed out that the learned Single Judge having relegated the writ petitioners to pursue their proper remedy before the State Level Committee, this Court in appeal may not be W.A.No.133 of 2010, etc. - 3 - justified in interfering with the discretion already exercised. Still further, it is pointed out that even the State Level Committee is empowered to pass interim orders. The norms prescribed by the Central Empowered Committee (which is said to be the same for the State Level Committee also) at paragraph 13 of the Rules and Procedure is as follows: “13. The Committee may pass interim order(s) so as to meet the ends of justice, which shall operate for a period of 90 days from the date of the issue of the order by which time the application shall be finally adjudicated. However, if no final order(s) is passed within 90 days, the interim order shall cease to operate unless extended by the Committee for reasons to be recorded in writing.” 5. Learned senior counsel also points out that the attempt before the Committee would be futile in view of the finding of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge. 6. Having regard to the rival submissions, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met in case the appellants are W.A.No.133 of 2010, etc. - 4 - relegated to pursue their proper remedy before the State Level Committee. There cannot be any dispute that the Committee is the forum competent to look into all these factual aspects as well. 7. Therefore, the writ appeals are disposed of as follows: i) In the event of the appellants/writ petitioners approaching the State Level Committee within a period of two weeks from today and filing applications for interim orders, the State Level Committee shall consider the matter for the purpose of interim orders with notice to the appellants and also the party respondent, within another six weeks. ii) Subject to the appellants approaching the State Level Committee as above, the status quo obtaining as of today shall continue. iii) We make it clear that the continuance of the units of the appellants beyond the period stipulated above will depend on the orders to be passed by the State Level Committee. iv) We further make it clear that the observations and W.A.No.133 of 2010, etc. - 5 - findings in the judgment under appeal on the factual aspects as to the date of starting of the units shall not stand in the way of the State Level Committee looking into the matter on the basis of materials produced by the appellants and on the basis of other records available with the State Level Committee. Kurian Joseph, Ag. Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns