Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHAN ISSAC,STATE GENERAL SECRETARY versus M/S.K.M.WOOD WORKS,ODANUR,PARALI P.O

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MOHAN ISSAC,STATE GENERAL SECRETARY v. M/S.K.M.WOOD WORKS,ODANUR,PARALI P.O - WA No. 1892 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 16930 (7 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1892 of 2007()

1. MOHAN ISSAC,STATE GENERAL SECRETARY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. M/S.K.M.WOOD WORKS,ODANUR,PARALI P.O,
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA

3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.N.J.JOHNSON

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :07/09/2007

O R D E R

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.

W.A.No.1892 of 2007

Dated, this the 7th day of September, 2007



JUDGMENT

H.L.Dattu, C.J. Appellant before us is the State General Secretary for Environment and Freedom Protection National Trust. With the permission of the Court he is prosecuting this appeal which is filed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.3256 of 2003 dated 27th October, 2006.

2. First respondent in the writ appeal had applied for grant of a licence to run a saw mill. Initially, the Divisional Forest Officer, Palakkad by his letter dated 24.7.2001 had granted permission/NOC to the first respondent to run a wood based industry in Sy.No.129/5 at Parali Village in the name and style of M/s.'KM Wood Industries'.

3. The very officer who had granted permission earlier, has passed yet another order dated 15.1.2003 cancelling the order passed by him on 24.7.2001. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 15.1.2003, the first respondent herein had filed O.P.No.3256 of 2003.

4. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 27th October, 2006 has allowed the writ petition and while doing so has relied upon the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Nilambur Taluk Saw Mill Owners Association & another v. Jose P.Jacob & others in W.A.No.1593 of 1999.

5. The facts in the aforesaid writ appeal are as under: An association was before this Court, inter alia, contending that the dicta laid down by the apex Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & others (AIR 1997 W.A.No.1892/2007 2 SC 1228) cannot be applied to a wood industry which had a licence and after the expiry of the licence had applied for renewal of the same. The learned Judges keeping in view the dicta laid down by the apex Court in Jawaharlal Sharma and another v. Divisional Forest Officer [(2002) 3 SCC 42] have observed that the issue of a fresh licence and the grant of renewal of a licence are two different things and, therefore, the dicta laid down by the apex Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad case cannot be applied to a case where a wood industry/saw mill is seeking renewal of a genuine licence which would come within a distance of 5 K.Ms.

6. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that he had a licence and sought for renewal of the licence. It is his specific case that for the first time he had applied for grant of a fresh licence to start a wood based industry in Sy.No.129/5 of Parali Village. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge, relying upon the decision in W.A.No.1593 of 1999 which has no nexus with the pleadings of the petitioner, could not have passed the impugned order.

7. Incidentally, in the writ petition the petitioner was primarily questioning Ext.P16 order wherein the authority who had granted NOC earlier has cancelled the NOC. The correctness or otherwise of that order should have been gone into by the learned Single Judge. Since that has not been done in the instant case, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be sent back to the learned Judge for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

8. Accordingly the following: W.A.No.1892/2007 3 Order

i) The writ appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27th October, 2006 is set aside. iii) O.P.No.3256 of 2003 is restored. iv) The learned Single Judge is requested to consider the writ petition on merits.

v) The first respondent herein is directed to implead the appellant in this writ appeal as a respondent in O.P.No.3256 of 2003. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN)

JUDGE

vns


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.