JUDGMENT

Ramachandra Menon, J.

The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court.

2. The challenge raised in the writ petition was, against Ext. P7 proceedings issued by the second respondent directing the petitioner to close down the saw mill, which he was operating without licence. The reason for ordering closure was that the writ petitioner did not produce any material to substantiate the fact that the saw mill was in existence as on 30.10.2002, which was the cut off date prescribed, in view of the verdict passed by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarma Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India (2002 (9) SCC 502). The operative portion of the said verdict has been extracted in the impugned order dated 19.05.2011, which reads as follows :

“No State or Union Territory shall permit any unlicensed saw-mills, veneer, plywood industry to operate and they are directed to close all such unlicensed unit forthwith. No State Government or Union Territory will permit the opening of any saw mills, veneer or plywood industry without prior permission of the Central Empowered

Committee. The Chief Secretary of each State will ensure strict compliance of this direction. There shall also be no re