IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16424 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.M.NAZEER,S/O.MOHAMMED ALI,NEELIKKATTIL HOUSE, KANJIRAKODE PO, WADAKKANCHERY(VIA),D THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN 680 590. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.M.M.DEEPA SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF FOREST SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE, REP.BY MEMBER SECRETARY,II FLOOR, CHANAKYA BHAVAN CHANAKYA PURI, NEW DELHI. PIN 110 023. 3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,THRISSUR 680 001. 4. THE DEPUTY RANGER,POONGODE FOREST STATION 680 582. SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16424 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 18.3.95 BEARING NO.1102/1995 OF SUB REGISTRY, WADAKKANCHERY EXT.P2 : TRIE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 20.12.10 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 6.2.08 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, ERUMAPPETTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN FAVOUR OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.10.2010 FROM THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR (SPECIAL AFFORESTATION) & NODAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2010 IN W.P.(C). 32054/2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MEMBERSHIP OF THE PETITIONER IN ALL KERALA SAW MILL & WOOD BASED INDUSTRIES OWNERS ASSOCIATION EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION DATED 14.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE & PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 25.3.11 FILED BY THE DEPUTY RANGER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, WADAKKANCHERY EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.4.11 IN C.M.P.1134/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, VADAKKANCHERY EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.5.11 IN CRL.M.C.1279/2011 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26.5.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).16424/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is conducting a Sawmill under the name and style “Neelikkattil Saw Mill” Kundanoor P.O, Chittanda, Thrissur. 2. Sawmill is lying within five kilometers from the reserved forest. In the meanwhile, on the ground that sawmill was in existence even prior to 30.10.2002 and therefore, he is entitled to be issued NOC, petitioner made an application to the State Level Empowered Committee. 3. Ext.P4 letter issued by the Nodal Officer shows that he admits the fact that the Unit is in existence prior to 30.10.2002. By this letter, the Nodal Officer called upon the petitioner to produce the materials substantiating his request for NOC. According to the petitioner, the documents were produced and the Empowered Committee has seized of his application. 4. Meanwhile, following the registration of O.R.1/2011 of W.P.(C).16424/11 2 Poongode Forest Station, sawmill was locked and sealed. There upon, the petitioner made an application before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakkancherry, for release of the seized articles. However, that application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Magistrate as per Exts.P9 and P10, stating that the closure of the sawmill was unrelated to the registration of O.R.1/2011. 5. Petitioner thereafter, filed Crl.M.C.1279/2011 before this Court and that Crl.M.C was also rejected as per Ext.P10 order paragraph 4 of which reads as under:- “I also find that the direction to close down the saw mill is for reasons that it is situated within five kms from the reserve forest and that no NOC has been obtained from the Forest Department. That has nothing to do with the allegations in O.R.1/2011 which the learned Magistrate is to consider in case a final report is submitted after investigation. If the closure of the saw mill for othe above said reasons is bad according to the petitioner, remedy open to the petitioner is to challenge the impugned order in any other manner provided by law.” W.P.(C).16424/11 3 6. Thus it is obvious that the registration of O.R.1/2011 is not the reason for closure of the sawmill and on the other hand, it is the absence of NOC which led to closure of the Unit. 7. In so far as the absence of NOC is concerned, the facts noticed above show that the Unit is in existence even prior to 30.10.2002 and the application made by the petitioner for issuance of NOC is pending consideration. In such circumstances, the immediate closure of the sawmill is unwarranted and that the Empowered Committee ought to have passed an order on the application. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the Empowered Committee will pass orders on the application made by the petitioner for NOC which shall be done as expeditiously as possible. It is directed that until orders are passed on the petitioners' application and communicated, petitioner will be permitted to operate the sawmill in question on the production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs