IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5727 of 2009(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SAJEEV M.P., S/O.PARAMESWARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUTHEMADATHIL HOUSE, CHUNDAVURRAI ESTATE, S.P.PURAM, P.O.MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. JOSE, S/O.ANTONY, RESIDING AT MALIEKKAL HOUSE, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER LAND REVENUE OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE, COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (HEAD OF SPECIAL TASK FORCE, MUNNAR). 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DEVIKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KDH VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE, DEVIKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MUNNAR DIVISION, DEVIKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, DEVIKULAM RANGE, MUNNAR DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 7. THE HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEWSPRINT NAGAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN FOR R6 SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R6 SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA FOR R6 SMT.UMA GOPINATH FOR R6 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.P. SREE KRISHNA. E.K. NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 133/03/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 5900 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 5727/2009. ----------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 STRUE COPY OF PURCHASE ORDER DT. 13-10-2006. EXT.P2 AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE ORDER DT. 10-12-2008. EXT.P3 MAHAZAR DT. 12-2-2009. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 21-11-2005. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 12-8-2008. EXT.P6 COPY OF PASS DT. 5-2-2009. EXT.P7 LETTER DT. 13-2-2009. EXT.P8 REPRESENTATION DT. 17-2-2009.S EXT.P9 REPRESENTATION DT. 16-2-2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) Nos. 5727 & 5900 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 13th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these two writ petitions are a public limited Company and a contractor employed by them. The Company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of newsprint. The raw materials for the product includes eucalyptus wood, bamboos reeds etc. The State Government, as per an agreement dated 7-10-1974, agreed and undertook to supply the stipulated quantity of such raw materials from the forest coupes/plantations annually to the petitioner. Pursuant to that agreement, the Chief Conservator of Forests has been issuing orders each year allotting various coupes/plantations in different forest divisions to the petitioner for extraction and transportation of eucalyptus timber to the Company's log yard at Newsprint Nagar. One such plantation allotted was 1999 Eucalyptus Plantation, Kuttiyar Valley in Devikulam range, during the year 2005-2006 for extraction. The extraction and transportation of timber was entrusted to the contractor on contract, who is the petitioner in the other writ petition. Since the Company could not complete the extraction and transportation, the Chief Conservator of Forests has re-allotted that Eucalyptus Plantations during subsequent years for extraction and transportation of the materials. The Company had obtained passes from the Forest Department, on the strength of which the contractor was transporting the Eucalyptus timber. 2. While the contractor was so transporting, the Revenue Authorities directed stoppage of the work and also seized the timber and the lorry belonging to the contractor. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court for release of the lorry and the timber. The Company also seeks a direction to the respondents to permit the Company to complete the W.P.C. Nos. 5727 & 5900/2009. -: 2 :- transportation of the felled eucalyptus wood. The petitioners would contend that if the two departments of the Government, namely, Revenue Department and Forest Department have some difference of opinion, that should not affect the rights of the petitioners in so far as they have a contract with the Government and the extraction and transportation of the timber is in accordance with that contract, that too, with valid passes issued by the Forest Department. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that now that the dispute is between two departments of the Government of Kerala and a public limited company, as already held by the Supreme Court in various cases, the matter has to be referred to a High Power Committee. He further submits that in the meanwhile, although he opposes the prayer of the petitioners, if this Court is inclined to permit the petitioners to take the timber, the same may be after safeguarding the interest of the Government in the matter. 4. I have heard both sides. 5. I am of opinion that since the petitioners are doing the cutting and removing of the trees after obtaining necessary clearance from the Forest Department as per a contract entered into for that purpose with the Government, simply because of the dispute between two departments of the Government, the petitioners should not suffer. Of course, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the petitioners have cut trees from property other than what is permitted. This is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the Company. He brings to my attention that it is as per the directions and permissions issued by the Forest Department that the cutting has been made. Having considered the arguments of both sides, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: W.P.C. Nos. 5727 & 5900/2009. -: 3 :- 6. In view of the several Supreme Court decisions on the subject, I am of opinion that this dispute also should be referred to a High Power Committee. Accordingly, I direct that the dispute in these cases be referred to a High Power Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary of the State, Secretaries of the concerned Departments of the State Government, Chief Executive of the Company and Sri. N. Sukumaran, Retired District and Sessions Judge. Pending decision by the High Power Committee, the respondents shall permit the petitioners to remove the timber and use the same, on the Company executing a simple bond without sureties for the value of the timber as determined by the District Collector. The District Collector shall assess the value of the timber and inform the Company the value so assessed, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If there is delay in assessing the value of the timber, the Company would be free to execute the bond for the amount which, according to the Company, is the value of the timber on receipt of which the petitioner shall be permitted to remove the timber. The High Power Committee shall take a decision on the subject within four months, subject, of course, to the right of the petitioners to challenge the same in accordance with law. 7. The direction to release the lorry and the timber seized as per the interim order would also form part of this judgment and the bond executed by the petitioners for release of the same would also form part of the security to be dealt with after the decision of the High Power Committee. Sri. N. Sukumaran who is the lone member of the Committee who is not holding any office of the Government, shall be paid adequate remuneration for his services as a member of the W.P.C. Nos. 5727 & 5900/2009. -: 4 :- Committee. He shall be paid Rs.25,000/- as remuneration in addition to expenses for traveling, accommodation etc. The same shall be paid by the petitioner-Company. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/