Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13399
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 31531 OF 2015 PETITIONER:
SURESH BABU C.P., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, PROPRIETOR, MODERN WOOD INDUSTRIES, CHEDATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, PENGATTIRI, NELLAYA P O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN 679335 BY ADVS.
SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS SMT.HENA BAHULEYAN SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER SRI.SHAFFIE THOMAS RESPONDENTS:
1 CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (SPECIAL AFFORESTATION)& NODAL OFFICER CONVENOR, STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE, KERALA FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695014
2 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER SOUTH DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, KALLEKULANGARA P O, PALAKKAD 678009
3 THE RANGE OFFICER OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678009
4 THE SECRETARY NELLAYA GRAMA PACHAYATH NELLAYA P O, PALAKKAD 679335
5 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PENGATTIRI ELECTRICAL SECTION , K S E BOARD, PALAKKAD DIST, PIN 679533 BY ADVS.
SMT.P.K.RADHIKA-KSEB SRI B PRAMOD, KSEB SRI.N.SATHEESH SRI.N.RAPHY RAJ, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED OTHER PRESENT:
SRI TP SAJAN SPL GP (FOREST)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.31531 of 2015 -------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:
i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction to the 2nd respondent calling for the records leading to the issuance of Ext-P6 and further issue a writ order or certiorari or direction quashing Ext-P6 as illegal, unjust and arbitrary.
ii) to declare that the petitioners unit is entitled to function with the machineries installed as per the verification report Ext.P-4.
iii) to issue any such other writ order or direction this Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case; and iv) to award the cost of petition.
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is running a wood based industry and according to the petitioner, he is conducting the same for about 30 years. He has submitted necessary application along with supporting documents for getting NOC from the 2nd respondent is the submission. The petitioner is involved in manufacturing door and window frames and small furniture is the further submission. According to the petitioner, about six persons are engaged in the unit and the petitioner is a traditional carpenter and there is no other source of livelihood. He started the unit way back in 1992 and is continuing the operation with re-saw and other machineries. According to the petitioner, the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and Other Wood Based Industrial Units) Rules, 2012 does not prevent units which were functioning prior to 30th October 2002 with the help of a bandsaw, re-saw. The 2nd respondent issued a stop memo and the petitioner filed a reply to it is the submission. Without considering the reply, the 2nd respondent now directed the 5th respondent to disconnect the supply to the petitioner’s unit is the further submission. Ext.P6 is the order. Aggrieved by the same, this petition is filed.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the Special Government Pleader (Forests) and the Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.
4. This Court perused Ext.P6 order. A perusal of Ext.P6 order would not show that it is an order passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Moreover, when this Writ Petition came up for consideration, this Court passed an interim order of stay of Ext.P6 and the order is in force even now. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think Ext.P6 can be set aside and the matter can be remitted back to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration. I make it clear that, I have not considered the matter on merit and the 2nd respondent is free to pass appropriate orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner .
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
i) Ext.P6 is set aside.
ii) The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any, as expeditiously as possible, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
