IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2007 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1929 WP(C).No. 29261 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JAIGY J.VALAVI,S/O.JOSE J.VALAVI, VALAVAI HOUSE, AGALI VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MANNARKKAD. 2. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, AGALI,PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.R.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO 29261/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PERMISISON, WHICH IS ENDORSED IN THE APPLICATION ITSELF DT. 13.6.07 EXT.P2. COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 8.9.07 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE R2(a). COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 29261 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2007 J U D G M E N T The case of the petitioner is that on the strength of Ext.P1 petitioner cut and stacked 125 trees. Subsequently he submitted Ext.P2 application for issuing pass for transportation of the timber so stacked. Orders were not passed and hence this writ petition has been filed. 2. In the statement filed by the respondents, while it is admitted that trees have been cut and stacked the 2nd respondent is trying to find fault with the application made by the petitioner that there has been variation in the signature. Respondents also seek to impress upon this court about the large scale destruction of trees growth in that area. Irrespective of the contentions that are raised including correctness of Ext.P1 permit, now that the petitioner has cut and stacked the timber on the strength of Ext.P1, respondents shall consider Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent, to whom Ext.P2 application has been made, shall consider the said application of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vps