IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 3530 of 2009(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- WAYANAD MUSLIM ORPHANAGE, MUTTIL MANDAD P.O. KALPETTA (VIA),WAYANAD-673122, REP.BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, P.A.ABDUL RAZAK. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MUTTIL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUTTIL P.O. WAYANAD REPRESENTED B ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE HON.SECRETARY, CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE,PARYAVARAN BHAWAN, C.G.O.COMPLEX, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI. 3. THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR, SPECIAL AFFORESTATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SOUTH WAYANAND DIVISION,KALPETTA,WAYANAND. 5. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KALPETTA. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R2 G.P. SHRI.SANDOSH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.3530 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is running an orphanage. To enable the inmates of the orphanage to gain training in carpentry so that they can learn a trade to earn a livelihood of their own, the orphanage is running a carpentry training unit. They had a licence for the same. However, the same has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner could not obtain and submit an NOC from the Central Empowered Committee of the Forest Department. The petitioner has already submitted Ext.P11 application before the Central Empowered Committee. The petitioner's contention is that the Central Empowered Committee is not considering that application. At the same time, the local authority is refusing to renew the licence for want of the NOC. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “(a) Call for the records leading up to Ext.P7 and P8 and to quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction: (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the first respondent to allow the petitioner to continue to run the Carpentry Training Centre without insisting for NOC from the Forest Department. (c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to pass final orders on the application submitted by the petitioner.” 2. I have heard the parties. 2 3. I am of opinion that simply because the Central Empowered Committee could not dispose of the application for NOC expeditiously, the petitioner should not be put to difficulties. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 2nd respondent-Central Empowered Committee shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.. Till the Committee passes orders on the petitioner's application for NOC, the 1st respondent shall permit the petitioner to continue the functioning of the petitioner's carpentry training unit. The learned Government Pleader points out that going by Ext.P12 acknowledgement, Ext.P11 has been served on the State Empowered Committee. If that be so, it is for the State Empowered Committee (or whoever has received the same) to forward the same to the Central Empowered Committee, which shall be done forthwith. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge