IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 36472 of 2009(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.NEELAKANTAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. V.K.BHAVADASAN, KAPLINGHAT MANA, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SIVAJI SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL SRI.K.JITHIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE EX-OFFICE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., AGRICULTURE (FOREST SPECIAL) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CUSTODIAN AND CONSERVATOR OF VESTED FORESTS, OLAVAKODE CIRCLE P.O., OLAVAKODE,PALGHAT. R1 & R2 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.PAULOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.36472/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19.5.1977 IN OA. 762/1974. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 24.6.1982 IN MFA. 84/1978. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 24.6.94. P4:- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD TO EXT.P3. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.36472 of 2009-D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010. Judgment 1.The petitioner obtained Ext.P1, an order under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 from the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad. The State of Kerala and the Custodian were the respondents. The parties are bound by that judicial order. Respondents carried an appeal to this Court. That was dismissed as per Ext.P2 judgment. Obviously, therefore, the respondents have to give effect to the decision contained in Ext.P1 whereby the petitioner is found entitled to be in possession of the property in question. 2.The petitioner complains that in spite of repeated requests and representations, the respondents have not given effect to the decision contained in Ext.P1, as affirmed as per Ext.P2. WPC36472/09 -: 2 :- This is nothing but clear negation of justice and infraction of rule of law. If there is any dispute between the State and the Custodian on the one hand and the petitioner on the other, as to the identity of the property that is covered by Ext.P1, either of the parties can bring that issue to the notice of the Forest Tribunal since that Tribunal would be the best authority to decide on the identity of the property covered by Ext.P1. 3.However, learned Special Government Pleader for Forests states that in the meanwhile, Kerala Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Land) Act, 2003 came into force and that the land in question is one that would fall under that Act. He says that on coming into force of that legislation, the petitioner ceases his entitlement to have the land because it is one that would be covered by that statute. 4.But, the petitioner is entitled to require the WPC36472/09 -: 3 :- respondents to give effect to Ext.P1. In taking a decision as to whether the respondents will give effect to or not, they render administrative or quasi judicial decision. The respondents are public authorities. Therefore, even by virtue of Section 4(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the respondents are bound to give the petitioner the reason, if any, as to why they would not give effect to Ext.P1 order issued under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act. If the reason of the respondents is referable to the Kerala Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Land) Act, that has to be clearly stated and a decision taken and communicated to the petitioner. No citizen can be forced to run from pillar to post even without being told a firm decision and the reason for that decision. The executive establishment of a democratic Republic cannot make oral decisions. It has to record its decision on files and communicate it in writing to the concerned. WPC36472/09 -: 4 :- In the aforesaid situation, the second respondent is directed to take up Ext.P1 and comply with it or issue a decision as to why Exts.P1 and P2 are not being complied with. If decision with reasons to that effect is not communicated to the petitioner within two months from now, he will be treated as eligible for restoration without reference to the provisions of Kerala Forests (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Land) Act and the respondents will put the petitioner in possession of the property covered by Ext.P1 within one month therefrom. All issues on merits are left open. The writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/0506