IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2314 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MR.PAUL FERNANDEZ, MANAGER, KARAPARA ESTATE 'A' PADAGIRI, NELLIAMPATHY HILLS, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, (CUSTODIAN-BIO-DIVERSITY ECOLOGICALLY FRAGILE LANDS)FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, NELLIAMPATHY PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. RENJITH THAMPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2314 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Exhibit P4 is a notification issued under the Kerala Forest (Vesting & Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Ordinance, 2000, which included 28 hectares of land of Karapara Estate belonging to the petitioner. When the Ordinance was substituted by the Kerala Forest (Vesting & Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003, invoking the rights available under section 19(3)(b) of the said Act, the petitioner made Exhibit P5 request to the first respondent seeking to exempt the land from vesting. Petitioner also requested for the issuance of a copy of the inspection report, but however the same was declined by Exhibit P6 and that decision is reiterated in Exhibit P8 also. In the meantime, Exhibit P10 was issued suggesting a fresh inspection and report and it is in this circumstances, this writ petition is filed complaining that the respondents are interfering with the agricultural operations and that they should be directed to issue copy of the inspection report. 2. I heard counsel for the petitioner and also learned W.P.(C) No.2314 / 2009 2 Additional Advocate General. From the facts, it is evident that Exhibit P5 filed by the petitioner before the first respondent under Section 19(3)(b) is still pending. Petitioner's case is that his land is not an ecologically fragile land and that the same has to be de-notified. That is a matter for the first respondent to consider while exercising his power under section 19(3)(b). Taking into account the pendency of Exhibit P5, it is directed that first respondent shall take a decision on Exhibit P5, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within four weeks of receipt of copy of this judgment. 3. The counsel for the petitioner complaints about the non- issuance of the inspection report mentioned in Exhibits P6 and P8. These two documents suggests the existence of such a report and that however the request of the petitioner for a copy of the report was declined as the report has not been accepted by the first respondent. In my view, the rejection of the report by the first respondent is not a reason to decline a copy of this report to the petitioner. Since there is such a report of inspection as is seen from Exhibits P6 and P8, the petitioner is entitled to get a copy of the report. Therefore, it is directed W.P.(C) No.2314 / 2009 3 that first respondent shall issue a copy of the report mentioned in Exhibit P8 and the petitioner shall also be given notice and an opportunity of being heard, before a final decision is taken on Exhibit P5 application submitted under Section 19(3)(b) of the Act. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm