IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 372 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26431/2007 Dated 16/10/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ E.MOIDU, S/O.THARJAVI, AGED 51 YEARS, ELAMBILAYI HOUSE, PALLIKKUNNU P.O., WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. KOTTATHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTATHARA P.O., WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SOUTH WAYANAD DIVISION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION (G) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.A.K.SRINIVASAN FOR R1 SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R1 SRI.A.S.BENOY FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY,Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J -------------------------------- W.A.372/2008 -------------------------------- Dated this 4th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy (Ag.C.J.) The appellant is the proprietor of a saw mill by Name Pullikkunnu Wood Industries, situated within the area of the first respondent Panchayat. He applied for a licence to run a saw mill. As per the directions of the Panchayat, appellant submitted an application before the DFO, the second respondent, for issuance of an NOC for establishment of the saw mill, and DFO, as per Ext.P1 order dated 7.11.1996 issued NOC to the appellant. DFO conducted an inspection of the site and found that the proposed site is within 5 Kms from the nearest forest area. The District Medical Officer approved the site plan for installation of 65 HP electric motor with certain conditions. On the basis of the above, Ext.P3 licence was issued. Thereafter year to year, licence was renewed till 31.3.2006. On 17.7.2006, petitioner applied for renewal of licence and that was rejected by the Panchayat stating that the petitioner was given permission for the installation of a 25 HP motor and not 65 HP motor, as W.A.372/2008 2 evidenced by Ext.P4. But according to the petitioner, Ext.P2 itself is in respect of 65 HP motor. Ext.P6 communication was thereafter, issued to the petitioner asking him to produce a fresh NOC in order to renew the licence, followed by Ext.P7. 2. Panchayat has taken a contention that since the licnece was not renewed in time, it cane be taken only as a fresh licence and for issuing fresh licence, NOC is required. 3. Learned Government Pleader submits that as per the directions dated 23.5.2008, DFO has no power to issue such an NOC, but that itself shows that such an NOC is not necessary for the licence issued prior to 30.10.2002. The licence of the petitioner was admittedly issued prior to 30.12.2002. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the application for renewal of licence was submitted after the prescribed period and so that it could be considered as a fresh application and in that view of the matter, petitioner has to obtain a fresh NOC from the Central Empowered Committee and W.A.372/2008 3 that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Others (AIR 1997 SC, 1228), belated applications cannot be renewed. The Forest officials also took the stand that since the application was not filed within time, it can be treated as a fresh licence as if there is no provision in the Panchayat Raj Act or Rules for belated applications. Rule 19 of the “The Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996, reads as follows:- Additional Fee - The maximum fee specified in Schedule III appended to these rules shall be applicable only for the application submitted in due time. In the case of belated applications, an additional fee of 25 per cent of the fee for licence payable under the schedule may be charged. 4. In the case of belated application, petitioner shall pay an additional fee of 25% of the fee for licence and that is payable under the schedule. Here the mill was running before 30.10.2002 as can be seen from Ext.P3 W.A.372/2008 4 series of licences. It was running upto 2002, without any complaint. There is no forest offences against the petitioner during this period. Department also has not insisted for renewal of licences for the industries which was established before 30.10.2002. petitioner was also not asked to produce fresh NOC. Fresh NOC was necessary only if it is for a fresh licence. We are of the view that it is only an application for renewal of licence. In the above circumstances, petitioner's application should be treated as for renewal of licence and the same should be renewed after collecting the required fees from time to time and for the belated application, belated fees, as mentioned under Rule 19, shall be paid. Forest officials to ensure that no forest offences are committed by the appellant. Writ appeal is allowed as above. J.B.KOSHY, Acting Chief Justice V.GIRI, Judge mrcs