IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1057 of 2010(A) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33201/2010 DATED 02/11/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. K. SANTHOSH, S/O.N.M. KUNHIKRISHNA KURIKKAL M/S PALAIYANA LAMINATES, PALIYANA, THARUVANA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. NISHAD. M.A, S/O.M.S. ABDU, M/S FIDLA TIMBER INDUSTRIES, KARAKKAMALA, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS, SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER, SRI.JACOB CHACKO, SMT.JANCY ALEX. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (SPECIAL AFFORESTATION)& NODAL OFFICER, CONVENOR,STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE, KERALA FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST,MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT-670 645. 3. VELLAMUNDA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VELLAMUNDA.P.O, WAYANAD DISTRICT-670 731. R1 & R2 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER MR.BENNY VARGHESE. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.1057 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) NO. 33201 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners seek review of the judgment disposing of WP(C) No.33201/10. 2. Ext.P7 order passed by the 1st respondent cancelling the NOC issued to the petitioners, was under challenge in the writ petition. The ground on which NOC was cancelled was that though the NOC was issued for processing rubber wood, other species of timber were also processed in the petitioner's unit. As a matter of fact, in the pleadings, this factual finding in Ext.P7 was not even disputed. It is taking note of the above the cancellation of the NOC was upheld by this Court. 3. However, when on behalf of the petitioner it was pointed out that a fresh application for NOC in respect of other species of timber made by the petitioner was pending, this Court also directed that if such an NOC is granted, it will be open to the petitioner to seek restoration of the NOC, which is now cancelled by Ext.P7. R.P.No.1057 OF 2010 IN WPC No. 33201/10 :2 : 4. In this review petition, what is contended by the petitioners is that it is the Convenor of the State Level Committee, who has issued Ext.P7 and that the said Convenor did not have any authority to issue Ext.P7. First of all, such a contention was not raised either in the pleadings or even during the course of the arguments. Therefore, this ground cannot now be urged to contend that the judgment is vitiated for any error warranting review. Even otherwise, when facts are admitted, for the only reason that an order of the State Level Committee was communicated by the Convenor will not in my view vitiate the order. Review petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp