IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1364 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------------- M.LAKSHMANAN, KARTHIKA TIMBERS, MUNNAR-685612. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENTS : --------------------------- 1. KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REGD.OFFICE KARAPUZHA , KOTTAYAM-686003. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., MUNNAR. 3. THE ASSISTANT MANAGER, SILENT VALLEY SUB UNIT, KEARLA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., MUNNAR.. SRI. V.G. ARUN, SC, KFDC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 1364 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that by Exhibit P1, work of cutting and removing Eucalyptus trees standing in 1995 pine plantation from Silent Valley in Munnar from an area of 9.920 hectares of land was awarded to the petitioners. According to the petitioner, on measurement, the area was found to be only 5.5 hectares. He requested for allotment of balance area but according to him was allotted only 5 hectares. Seeking allotment of the remaining area, the petitioner has filed Exhibit P4 and P5 before the first respondent and the complaint is that orders have not been passed on these representations. 2. I heard Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, who points out that in case of any dispute, remedy available to the petitioner is under Clause 31 of the agreement. 3. As already noticed, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to take a decision on Exhibits P4 and P5. A reading of Clause 31 of the agreement, it can be seen that dispute if any shall be W.P.(C) No. 1364/ 2009 2 referred to the first respondent,who should decide the same. Therefore, Clause 31 will not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking an order directing the 1st respondent to take a decision on his representations. Therefore, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibits P4 and P5 expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks of production of copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm