IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16396 of 2011(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ANEESH CHACKO, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO AUGUSTINE, MANGALATHIL HOUSE, ANAVILASOM P.O., KUMILY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR, SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN, SMT.T.J.SEEMA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTTAYAM- 686 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.RAJASHREE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 16396 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION DATED 15/02/2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTTAYAM DATED 10/04/1992. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND HIS BROTHER, RINESH CHACKO. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 06/05/2011. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH IN THE NAME OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTTAYAM DATED 19/05/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 16396 OF 2011 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7, an order passed by the 2nd respondent to close down the firms listed therein including that of the petitioner's unit, which is Sl.No.10 in the list attached to the said order. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the unit was in existence long prior to 30/10/2002, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to continue the unit without even an NOC. 2. However, on facts, it is seen that the unit was established long prior to 30/10/2002 by another person, who had availed of financial assistance from the Kerala Financial Corporation. Default was committed and the unit was taken over by the KFC on 4/3/98. Thereafter, KFC sold the mortgaged assets in auction and the petitioner purchased the unit. Thereupon Ext.P4 sale deed was executed by the KFC in favour of the petitioner on 3/6/2003. It is thereafter that the petitioner revived the industrial unit. Obviously therefore, the unit was not functioning as on 30/10/002 to get the benefit available to units WPC No. 16396/11 :2 : which were functioning as on that date. 3. In that view of the matter, and as the petitioner does not have an NOC in his favour, the view taken in Ext.P7 is unassailable and I am not in a position to interfere with Ext.P7. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp