IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 784 of 2011(W) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S. HILL WOOD FURNITURE PVT. LTD. FP XII/648-A, N.H.ROAD, CHUNGAM, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, V.SHEREEF. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST & WILD LIFE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. STATE LEVEL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE ON WOOD BASED INDUSTRIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (SPECIAL AFFORESTATION) AND NODAL OFFICER, FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 3. CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE (CONSTITUTED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AS PER THE ORDERS IN WP NO.202/95 AND 171/96) REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, 2ND FLOOR, CHANAKYA BHAVAN, CHANAKYAPURI, NEW DELHI, PIN-110 021. 4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673020. 5. FEROKE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673631, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHEESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No. 784 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of the observations made by the Apex Court in Godavarman's case , whereby the sawmills existing prior to the cut off date of '30.10.2002' could be permitted to be continued; is the question involved 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner purchased a running unit of saw mill and wood based manufacturing industry, obtaining certificate of provisional registration as S.S.I Unit issued by the Industries Department on 26.8.2002. As a matter of fact, the property was purchased by the petitioner from his wife as per the sale deed dated 30th August, 2002. The case of the petitioner is that, the saw mill unit was very much in existence as on the appointed date and that the petitioner received Ext.P8 No Objection Certificate issued by the 4th respondent on the strength of which the petitioner was conducting and carrying on the business. In support of the contention of the petitioner that the saw W.P (C) No. 784 of 2011 2 mill was being conducted even prior to the appointed date, reliance is sought to be placed on Ext.P1 receipt with regard to the application preferred before the Panchayat; Ext.P2 certificate of registration issued by the Sales Tax authorities with effect from 16.8.2002 and such other materials. Over and above this, the petitioner has also produced some other records along with I.A No.670 of 2011 such as Ext.P19 sales tax inspection report dated 17.10.2002 and a copy of the stock register dated 17.10.2002 as Ext.P20. Copies of some bills dated 26.10.2002 and 27.10.2002 are also produced as Exts.P21 and P22 respectively. 3. With reference to the said records, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is very much entitled to have the benefit of the verdict passed by the Apex Court (cited supra) and the operation of the unit could not have been intercepted by the respondents under any circumstances. With regard to the course of events, it is stated that the petitioner, when filed Ext.P13 application for renewal of Ext.P8 No objection Certificate , no positive W.P (C) No. 784 of 2011 3 action was taken from the part of the respondents, which made them to file a reminder by way of Ext.P14. 4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was served with Ext.P15 (a) 'stop memo' issued by the 4th respondent . This was challenged before this Court by filing W.P (C) No.34196/2010, which was admitted and an interim order was passed on 12.11.2010 as borne by Ext.P16. In the course of the proceedings, it is brought to the notice of this Court, that the renewal application was considered and finalised by passing appropriate orders; pursuant to which, the writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P16(a) judgment dated 19.11.2010, whereby the decision stated as taken by the third respondent was ordered to be communicated, simultaneously ordering to maintain 'status quo' till such time as specified therein. Ext.P17 dated 23.12.2010 is the order stated as passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, wherein, the application preferred by the petitioner is stated as rejected, for the reason that the unit was not in existence prior to the appointed date. The petitioner preferred Ext.P18 representation pointing W.P (C) No. 784 of 2011 4 out the facts and figures before the Convenor of the State Level Empowered Committee and approached this Court by filing this writ petition for redressal of the grievances. 5. The claim of the petitioner is resisted from the part of the respondents by filing a statement and also producing copies of documents as Annexure R4 (a), Annexure R4 (b) and Annexure R4 (c). Annexure R4 (a) is the verification report dated 16.3.2004, pursuant to Annexure R4 (b) application dated 6.3.2004, for issuance of the No Objection Certificate ,which in turn was the basis of having issued Ext.P8 No Objection Certificate. 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is not entitled to have relief for, asserting that even the admitted facts reveal that the saw mill unit was not in existence prior to the appointed date i.e.30.10.2002. Specific reference is made to the various columns in Ext.P15, wherein, the petitioner has given the relevant entries pointing out that the unit was commenced only in the year 2003 (Col.13) that the electricity connection was obtained only on 16.5.2003 (column No.15) W.P (C) No. 784 of 2011 5 that the S.S.I registration was obtained in 2003(column No.16) and such other factual particulars, it is also stated that the petitioner, with regard to the query as to whether any licenses were given as on 30.10.2002, has answered the same in the negative(Col.13). It was after verifying all the particulars as above, that the petitioner subscribed his signature against column No.24, which clearly defeat the case. 7. The learned Government Pleader points out that the contention of the petitioner that the existence of the unit was being accepted by the 4th respondent, having issued Ext.P8 No Objection Certificate, is without any merit; in view of the fact that the said No Objection Certificate was applied for only on 6.3.2004 vide Annexure R4 (b) application. That apart, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that it has been categorically mentioned in Ext.P8 in the last sentence as follows: "The validity for this certificate is 5 years from the date of issue of this order subjects to revision of higher authorities or Court. This license is not to be used to W.P (C) No. 784 of 2011 6 set up a Sawmill, Plywood or Veneer unit. This is only to continue operation of existing unit." 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the adverse entries in Ext.P15 were not made by the petitioner and that they were actually incorporated by the officials of the Department. It is also stated that the petitioner did not verify the facts and figures contained in Ext.P15 application, since the same was filled up by the officials of the Department and the petitioner had subscribed his signature to the same. 9. On going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the various entries given by the petitioner against column Nos,13, 14, 15 and 16 stand very much detrimental to the case projected by the petitioner. As admitted by the petitioner, the entry shown in Column No.13 as to the starting of the unit is '2003' and that existence of the license, if any, as on 30.10.2002, has been answered in the 'negative'. The version that such entries were incorporated by the Departmental authorities is W.P (C) No. 784 of 2011 7 beyond all logical limits. With regard to the electricity connection also, it is also stated that the same was obtained only on 16.5.2003; which is sought to be explained, contending that, prior to the said date, operation was being done not on the basis of electrical energy, but otherwise, which is rather puerile. With regard to the entries in Column No.14, it is to be noted that all the sub columns with regard to the various facts and figures in respect of "units existing before 30.10.2002" have been left blank and the petitioner has not stated anything there, that the unit was functioning prior to the said date. On the other hand in the next column with regard to the entries for "units existing after 30.10.2002" 'tick' marks have been given in the appropriate column. Even though there is a contention that the tick marks have been given in the column for units existing after 30.10.2002, there is absolutely no explanation as to the non-filling of the columns in respect of the entries for existing units before 30.10.2002. In other words, nothing prevented the petitioner from giving appropriate entries in the said W.P (C) No. 784 of 2011 8 columns, if the unit was actually in existence prior to the appointed date 30.10.2002. 10. Coming to the documents produced by the petitioner as to the entries made by the authorities of the Sales tax, it is true that the petitioner's case as to the existence of the unit and carrying out the operations with respect to the "sale of timber" and such other materials is not disputed from the part of the respondents. The actual dispute is whether the "saw mill" was in existence or not. Documents produced as Exts.P19, P20, P21 and P22 do not give any positive idea in support of the contentions and claim put forward by the petitioner. That apart, Exts.P21 and 22, though stated as bills dated 26.10.2002 and 27.10.2002 issued in favour of third parties do not reveal as to the collection of any tax or such other particulars; which hence are not beyond doubt; besides the fact that the said bills are not in respect of any sawing operation before the "cut off date" but in respect of "imported sawn sizes of timber". W.P (C) No. 784 of 2011 9 11. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner that the "saw mill unit" was in existence prior to the "cut off date" of 30.10.2002 is not liable to be accepted. None of the grounds raised in the writ petition does serve any purpose. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge