JUDGMENT

These two writ petitions are connected and therefore I am disposing these two writ petitions by a common judgment.

2. W.P.(C)No.4631 of 2022 is filed challenging Ext.P10 order by which the renewal application of the petitioner for renewal of licence is rejected. W.P.

(C)No.1606 of 2021 is filed with following prayers:

“(A) Call for the records relating to exhibit P7 order and quash the same by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction.

(B) Call for the records relating to exhibits P1 the proceedings on the file of the 2nd respondent in the matter of renewal of exhibit P1 license and declare the same to have been rendered without jurisdiction, misrepresentation and suppression of facts and therefore liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction.

(C) to issue a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting the 4th respondent from resuming function of Saw Mill in the name and style M/s B.R.Wood Industries, Mangadu P.O., Kollam on the basis of exhibit P1 license (D) to pass such other writ, order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and (E) Allow the writ petition with costs to the petitioners.”[SIC]

3. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.1606 of 2021 is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order by which the request of the petitioner in that case to cancel the license is rejected. Probably in the light of Ext.P10 order in W.P.(C)No.4631 of 2022, the prayer in W.P.(C)No.1606 of 2021 is infructuous.

4. When W.P.(C)No.4631 of 2022 came up for consideration on 11.02.2022, this Court passed an interim order considering the facts and circumstances of this case. It will be better to extract the interim order dated 11.02.2022:

“Admit.

Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2.

Issue urgent notice by speed post to respondents 3 to 5.

Post along with W.P.(C)No.1759/2022. In the meanwhile, there will be an interim order as prayed for, for a period of one month.”

5. Admittedly, M/s.B.R Wood Industries, a saw mill is working from 1990 on wards. Now as per Ext.P10, the renewal application of the petitioner was rejected. Considering the fact that it is a saw mill which is functioning from 1990, this Court passed the interim order at the time of admitting the writ petition. Today when the matter came up for consideration, both sides conceded that there is an appeal against Ext.P10 as per Rule 18 of the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and Other Wood-based Industrial Units) Rules, 2012.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that, if the petitioner is relegated to file an appeal, the appellate authority has no power to allow the functioning of the saw mill. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the petitioner can be allowed to file an appeal against Ext.P10 and till final orders are passed in the appeal, the petitioner can be allowed to function the saw mill subject to the result of the orders to be passed by the appellate authority. Once the appeal is disposed of and if it is against the petitioner, till the order is delivered to the petitioner, the interim order can continue for a short period to facilitate the petitioner to avail the other remedies.

Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner:

i. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.4631/2022 is free to challenge Ext.P10 by filing an appeal as per Rule 18 of the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and Other Wood- based Industrial Units) Rules, 2012, within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

ii. Once such an appeal is received, the appellate authority will consider the appeal and pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of the appeal.

iii.Before passing final orders, the appellate authority will give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in W.P.

(C) Nos.4631/2022 and 1606/2021.

iv.If th