Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 1038
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anu Sivaraman, J.
Eappen T. Thomas - Appellants
Vs.
State of Kerala - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 21711 of 2016
Decided On : 21-05-2020
For the Appellant : Thampan Thomas, Hena Banuleyan, B.V. Joy Sankar and Shaffie Thomas
For the Respondents: Sandesh Raja
The court emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of the Kerala Forest Rules, 2012, regarding the operation and capacity of sawmills and wood-based industrial units.
Headnote:
band saw - Sawmill Installation - Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and Other wood-based Industrial Units) Rules, 2012 - Rule 6(1), Rule 9(ii), Rule 12 - The court discussed the provisions of the Kerala Forest Rules, 2012, which require a licence for operation of a sawmill or wood-based industrial unit at the same capacity as on 30th October, 2002. The rules also state that any sawmill which started functioning after 30.10.2002 shall be given a licence only after assessing the availability of wood from all sources by the Advisory Committee and on satisfaction that adequate quantity of wood for the unit is available. The court found that the refusal to grant a licence for any enhanced capacity was not illegal or arbitrary.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner inherited a Sawmill and purchased land at a new location to install the sawmill with necessary permits and D and O Licence. The Forest Department rejected the petitioner's application to use the band saw and re-saw together, citing the Kerala Forest Rules, 2012.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the refusal to grant a licence for any enhanced capacity cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to install a band saw in the sawmill without reference to the availability of adequate quantity of wood from all sources, as required by the Kerala Forest Rules, 2012.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of the Kerala Forest Rules, 2012, which require a licence for operation of a sawmill or wood-based industrial unit at the same capacity as on 30th October, 2002, and only after assessing the availability of wood from all sources by the Advisory Committee.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court.
ORDER :
Anu Sivaraman, J.
1. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:--
"(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction to call for the records leading to the issuance of EXHIBIT - P16, P18 and P19 and quash the same and all further proceedings thereon;
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to install band saw in the petitioner's Sawmill namely Thekkeparambil Sawmill, Vechoochira, Ranni, without any reference to the availability of adequate quantity of wood from all sources.
(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner is entitled to install band saw in the petitioner's Sawmill namely Thekkeparambil Sawmill, Vechoochira, Ranni, without any reference to the availability of adequate quantity of wood from all sources."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner inherited a Sawmill which was working from 1969, which had a band saw, re-saw and other machineries with a power connection of 35 HP. There were some objections from the neighborhood for using re-saw and band saw together. The Vechoochira Grama Panchayath had granted D and O Licence for the use of 35 HP machineries and the installed capacity of the saw mill was 200 metric cubes annually. There were litigation between the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and some neighboring residents. This was compromised by agreeing that the petitioner will shift the saw mill from the premise in which it was functioning. Accordingly, the petitioner inherited the Sawmill and purchased land at suitable new location and installed the saw mill with all necessary permits and D and O Licence.
4. It is contended that the Forest Department directed the petitioner to submit an application for using the band saw and re-saw together in the light of the Kerala Forest Rules, 2012. Though the petitioner made such an application, it was rejected by Ext. P7 order dated 19.2.2013. Though further litigations ensued, the respondents have rejected the petitioner's request for reconnecting the band saw which 'as in existence prior to 30.10.2002, which is under challenge.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that assessment of availability of adequate quantity of wood from all sources is not applicable in petitioner's case as the D and O Licence was granted for the unit with re-saw and band saw together prior to 30.10.2002. Moreover, the petitioner is not intending to enhance the installed capacity for more than 200 metric cubes of wood per year. It is contended that the band saw is essential for the functioning of the Sawmill to improve quality of work, save time and cost, reduce labour dependence, etc. and it is only the continuation of the earlier sawmill. It is argued that there is no restriction in Kerala Forest Rules or Court Order to re-install a band saw existed prior to 30.10.2002 in a sawmill functioning with all permits and licences, without enhancing the annual installed capacity in terms of wood consumption.
6. The learned counsel places reliance on the documents produced along with the reply affidavit to contend that the sawmill was functioning with the capacity of 35 HP and therefore the action taken without considering the relevant aspects of the matter is completely unsustainable.
7. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 1st respondent. It is stated that as per Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and other wood based Industrial Units) Rules, 2012, no person shall enhance the capacity of any sawmill or wood based industrial units without the written permission of the authorised officer. It is stated that as per Rule 12(3), the licence for enhancing the capacity of sawmill shall be granted only after assessing the availability of wood from all sources
