IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 721 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5533/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WP ------------------------ 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER MALAYATTOOR DIVISION, KODANADU, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (PROTECTION), FOREST HEAD QUARTERS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.M.PAULOSE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN THE WP. ------------------------- JOBY CHACKO, S/O.M.C.CHACKO MADHAVASSERY HOUSE, ESI ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR PROPRIETOR, ST.JOSEPH TIMBERSS, RUBBER PARK VALAYAMCHIRANKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADVS. MR.M.SASINDRAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2010, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.5533 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.R.Raman, Ag.C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A.721/2008 & WP(C).5533/2008-H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010. Judgment P.R.Raman, Ag.C.J. 1.The writ appeal is preferred against the interim order dated 29.2.2008 in WP(C).5533/2008. The respondent in the writ appeal as petitioner filed the writ petition for direction to issue NOC to start a rubber based industrial unit, which inter alia includes sawing as evidenced by Ext.P2 application. Ext.P7 is the application made. But NOC was not granted since the industrial unit consists of a saw mill and for the establishment of a saw mill, clearance from the appropriate Empowered Committee is necessary. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to the notice of the learned single Judge WA721/08 & WPC5533/08 -: 2 :- the judgment of the Apex Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad's case and an order dated 29.10.2002, the learned single Judge took the view that the order of the Apex Court cannot stand in the way of granting NOC sought for by the writ petitioner since, according to the learned single Judge, the order of the Apex Court could not have covered a rubber based industry. In that view of the matter, even by an interim order, direction was issued to consider Ext.P7 application and pass appropriate orders within the time frame as fixed in the order. Though this is an interim order, virtually the nature of the order passed has some finality in that regard. The crucial question as to whether sanction from the Central Empowered committee is required before NOC could be given has been answered and directions were issued. 2.Since the issue raised for consideration in the writ appeal is only regarding the above aspect, we called for writ petition itself. WA721/08 & WPC5533/08 -: 3 :- 3.The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State points out that Annexure-A1 order is the relevant order passed by the Apex Court. We have perused the said order. We find that the Apex Curt in Annexure-A1 order gave peremptory direction to the State Government not to permit the opening of any saw mills, veneer or plywood industry without prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee and strict compliance was ordered to be ensured by the Chief Secretary. There is a further direction that there shall not be any relaxation of rules with regard to the grant of licence without previous concurrence of the Central Empowered Committee. We do not find anything in the said order exempting the rubber based industry involving sawing from the operation of the said order. This view was taken by another learned single Judge of this Court as evidenced by Annexure-A3 judgment which was appealled to the Division Bench as per W.A.789/2007 and Annexure-A4 is the judgment of the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that the view taken by the learned single Judge is contrary WA721/08 & WPC5533/08 -: 4 :- to the observations of the Supreme Court and hence, the order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order was set aside and liberty was reserved to the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the centrally empowered committee and that committee was to consider the petitioner's application in accordance with law. However, we find that neither the party brought to the notice of this Court Annexure-A4 judgment while passing the impugned order. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order is set aside and it is open to the writ petitioner to approach the Central Empowered Committee for previous concurrence for obtaining the NOC. The writ appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed subject to what is stated above. P.R.Raman, Ag. Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Sha/0802 Judge.