IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 879 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15044/2011 Dated 14/06/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------ GEYOMOL.K.SASI,D/O.SASI.K.T,KOLLAPPILLIL PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES,SELLIAMPARA,VELLATHOOVAL.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 --------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, (SPL.AFFORESTATION)& NODEL OFFICER,FOREST HEAD QUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (I & E), KOTHAMANGALAM,PIN-685001,(WRONGLY SHOWN AS KOTTAYAM). 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MUNNAR,DEVIKULAM,PIN-685602. 4. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, DEVIKULAM,PIN-685602. SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.MPOULOSE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 879 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. The appellant claims to be the proprietor of a Plywood Industry. She filed the Writ Petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on Exhibit P4 application filed for the purpose of obtaining a no-objection certificate. It appears that subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, as per Exhibit P7 proceedings of the Divisional Forest Officer, the unit itself was ordered to close down. In view of Exhibit P7, appellant also sought an order restraining the authorities from interfering with the functioning of the Plywood Industry. 2. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Judge upheld the validity of Exhibit P7. However, it is clarified that it will be open to the appellant to pursue Exhibit P4 application for the purpose of no-objection certificate. It is aggrieved by the said judgment that this Writ Appeal has been filed. 3. The basis on which the learned Judge declined to interfere with Exhibit P7 is that the appellant has not placed anything on WA.879/11 2 record to indicate that the unit in question was in existence or functioning as on 30.12.2002. Even in this appeal, there is no pleading or any other material for us to conclude that the inference drawn by the learned Single Judge is erroneous for any reason. If that be so, necessarily, the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be upheld and we do so. However, as clarified by the learned Single Judge, it will be open to the appellant to pursue before the first respondent for orders on Exhibit P4 application. Subject to the above, the Writ Appeal will stand dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vgs