IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 955 of 2009(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SHERLY JOSEPH, W/O. JOSEPH, MANAYANICKAL, THODUPUZHA EAST, P.O. THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SPECIAL AFORESTATION AND NODAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MALAYATOR DIVISION, KODANAD.P.O, PIN - 683 544. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KANIMANGALAM. SPL.GOVT.PLEADER RENJITH THAMPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 955 OF 2009 (L) ==================== Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that she has purchased a furniture unit. Thereupon she made application to the 2nd respondent seeking permission to shift the unit to another location and also to transfer Ext.P4 NOC. It is stated that there was no progress in the matter and finally the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court as WP(C) No.33130/08. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment directing the 1st respondent to consider the matter. The 1st respondent thereafter issued Ext.P8 informing the petitioner that the matter will be placed before the State Level Empowered Committee and it is at that stage the writ petition is filed. 2. Although the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the matter need not be placed before the consideration of the State Level Empowered Committee, since the unit is already having an NOC, I am not inclined to think that the learned counsel is correct in the submission. This is for the reason that NOC pertains to the location of the unit and if that be so, the matter has to be considered. 3. However, having regard to the fact that even by Ext.P8 dated WPC 955/09 :2 : 20/12/2008, though the 1st respondent had ordered that Ext.P1 request made by the petitioner be placed before the consideration of the State Level Empowered Committee, there has not been any progress in the matter. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as a result of the stalemate, she is not in a position to run the unit and the unit is lying closed. 4. Taking into account all this, I direct that the 1st respondent shall place Ext.P1 request made by the petitioner for the consideration of the State Level Empowered Committee and that the State Level Empowered Committee shall consider the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp