IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20063 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SUMESH SUKUMARAN,PROPRIETOR, M/S.SUMESH ENTERPRISES,KADUVANKULANGARA JUNCTION, KARUVATTA PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR WOOD BASED INDUSTRIES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695 001, REP.BY THE CONVENOR CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (SPECIAL AFORESTATION) AND NODEL OFFICER. 3. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,FOREST RANGE OFFICE, RANNI,PIN 689 672. SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.20063/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 26.5.09 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CURRENT LICENSE DATED 20.4.11 ISSUED BY THE KARUVATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER'S UNIT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 16.6.08 ISSUED BY THE FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 10.7.08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR RECEIPT OF EXT.P1 APPLICATION. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 4.7.11 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20063 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 notice of closure requiring the petitioner to close down his saw mill on the ground of want of NOC. It is the petitioner's case that he has already applied for NOC and that Ext.P1 is the verification report. Therefore, it is contended that the notice of closure was unwarranted and illegal. 2. However, on the petitioner's own showing, the mill in question was started in 2008. If that be so, without an NOC the mill could not have been established. 3. In that view of the matter, though I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P5 notice, having regard to the pendency of the application for NOC made by the petitioner, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider the same and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp