IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10711 of 2011(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- P.S.NOORAJAHAN,PULIPARAMBIL, NADACKAL.P.O., PIN-686124. PROPRITOR, M/S. ASHIK WOOD INDUSTRIES POOVARANI.P.O., PALA, PIN-686577. BY ADVS. SRI.REJI GEORGE SRI.S.K.MOHAMED SAJEER SMT.MANJU RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686001. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, (SPECIAL AFFORESTATION) & CONVENER, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10711 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 4th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is mainly regarding the alleged inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in passing orders on Ext.P4 application stated to have been made by the petitioner on 2/8/2007 for renewal of her NOC. The case of the petitioner is that she had established a proprietary concern by name Ashik Wood Industries, a Small Scale Industrial Unit. It is her case that she had obtained Ext.P1 permanent registration and Ext.P2 NOC by the 1st respondent, which was renewed thereafter till 30/10/2002. It is also her case that based on Exts.P1 and P2, she had obtained licence from the Meenachil Grama Panchayat, which was also renewed on an annual basis. In substance, what the petitioner submits is that, as on 30/10/2002, the unit was functioning on the strength of licence issued by the Panchayat and NOC issued by the 1st respondent, and therefore, the 1st respondent is the authority competent to renew the licence. Petitioner seeks to substantiate this contention relying on Ext.P6 circular and Ext.P7 judgment. WPC No. 10711/11 :2 : 2. I heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents also. 3. Although the learned Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioner has not produced anything to show that the Panchayat licence was in force in 2002, in my view, in the light of Ext.P6 circular and Ext.P7 judgment relied on by the petitioner, this is a matter essentially for the 1st respondent to consider. In that view of the matter, I direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, 1st respondent will consider Ext.P4 application dated 2/8/2007, if such an application made by the petitioner has been received and is pending. It is directed that along with a copy of this judgment, petitioner shall also produce licence if any issued by the Meenachil Grama Panchayat, which was valid as on 30/10/2002. If the petitioner produces the above, the 1st respondent will pass orders on Ext.P4. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp