IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 590 of 2011(U) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18761/2011 Dated 12/07/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): --------------------------------- M/S.SUMAYA WOOD INDUSTRIES PLYWOOD AND SAW MILL PAZHAYA LAKKIDI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR A.B.ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O.A.H.BHAVA, ALLINGAL HOUSE, NAGARIPURAM POST, PATHIRAPALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 642. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SMT.B.SHAMEERA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SPECIAL AFFORESTATION AND NODAL OFFICER) FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KALLEKULANGARA POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 009. 3. THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, LAKKIDI PERUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, LAKKIDI PERUR, PALAKKAD-679 101. 4. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD-679 101. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGHESE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP NO.590/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY of the APPLICATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM FOR THE NOC FOR WOOD BASEDINDUSTRIES to the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SPECIAL AFFORESTATION) AND NO, TRIVANDRUM. ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 26.3.2011 BY REF.NO.FC1-977/2011 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR (SPECIAL AFFORESTATION) AND NODAL OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM. ANNEXURE 2(a): TRUE COPY OF A CERTIFICATE DT 27.5.11 ISSUED FROM THE LAKKIDI PERUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT STATIGN THT the INDUSTRIAL UNIT OF THE PETITIONER WAS STARTED in the EYAR 1993-94. ANNEXURE 2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1-31/2006 DT 5.1.2006 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PALAKKAD TO PROVE THAT THE PETITIONERS INDUSTRIAL UNIT WAS STARTED in the YEAR 1993. ANNEXURE 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 2(g) & 2(h): TRUE COPIES OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE DFO PALAKKAD DT 27.5.2005, DT 15.6.2006, DT 196.2007, DT 15.1.2008, DT 3.4.2009 DT 22.4.2010. ANNEXURE 3: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED by the LAKKIDI PERUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT ON 20.6.2007 WITH VALIDITY UPTO 31.3.2008. ANNEXURE 3(a) & 3(b): TRUE COPIES of THELICENSE ISSUED BY THE LAKKIDI PERUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT WITH VALIDITY UPTO 31.3.2009 AND RENEWED UPTO 31.3.2010. ANNEXURE 4: TRUE COPY OF THAT VERIFICATION RERPOT ON APPLICATION FOR NOC VIDE NO.WBI/SLC.NO.6122 FC/(3) 977/2011 DT 24.2.2011. ANNEXURE 5: TRUE COPYOF THE LETTER NO.E1-165/05 DT 4.1.2006 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,OTTAPALAM TO THE OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PALAKKAD. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.590 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C) NO. 18761 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 O R D E R This review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment dismissing WP(C) No.18761/11. The writ petition was filed apprehending that on the basis of Ext.P11, a news paper report, petitioner's plywood factory will be ordered to be closed for want of NOC issued by the State Level Empowered Committee. By judgment dated 12th of July, 2011, the writ petition was dismissed mainly for the reason that the petitioner had not produced any material indicating the existence of the unit as on 30/10/2002 or that any application made by the petitioner for NOC was pending before the State Level Empowered Committee. 2. In this review petition, petitioner has produced materials which prima facie indicate the existence of the unit prior to 30/10/2002 and also the pendency of the application. It is also averred that it was on account of an inadvertent omission that these documents were not produced along with the writ petition. 3. I heard the learned Government Pleader on this R.P.No.590/11 in WPC No. 18761/11 :2 : application. Having considered the documents produced by the petitioner along with the review petition, I am satisfied that if these documents were considered, the conclusions in the judgment would have been otherwise. In that view, I am satisfied that the judgment is vitiated for errors apparent on the face of it and accordingly the review petition is allowed and the judgment is recalled. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp