IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 9021 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SHANMUGHAN,AGED 40, S/O.KARAPPAN, MURINGATHERI DESOM, KANKILATH HOUSE,NELLUVAI, TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, THRISSUR DIVISION,AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 3. DEPUTY RANGER,POONGODE FOREST RANGE, NELLUVAI,THRISSUR DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 9021 OF 2009 (W) ===================== Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2, by which the 2nd respondent has rejected the application made by the petitioner for an NOC for operating his furniture manufacturing unit. 2. Petitioner claims that he is a carpenter by profession with a furniture unit in the premises mentioned in Ext.P2. It is stated that for mala fide reasons, he has been involved in a criminal case as OR No.5/08. According to him, on an application made by the petitioner to the Sessions Court, Trichur, the machinery seized were released to him and thereafter on 21/1/2009, petitioner made application to the 2nd respondent for NOC. It is on that application, Ext.P2 is passed rejecting the prayer. 3. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that on inspection in the petitioner's premises, respondents seized teak wood, which was kept unauthorisedly and on that basis OR No.5/2008 was registered. It is stated that although the furniture unit of the WPC 9021/09 :2 : petitioner was sealed and the articles were taken into custody and mahazar was prepared, petitioner broke upon the lock and resumed his furniture manufacturing activities. It is taking note of the conduct as above, the respondents thought that the petitioner cannot be issued NOC for running his furniture unit. 4. On the facts as stated in Ext.P2, I am not persuaded to think that the reasons assigned by the respondents for rejecting NOC are irrational or perverse warranting interference of this Court. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp