N.U. John v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest Head Quarters, Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala; Kerala State Pollution Control Board; Union of India; Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department; Central Empowered Committee

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 WP(C).No. 18671 of 2011 (S) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ N.U.JOHN, PRESIDENT, PARISTHITHI SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY, MUTHALAKODAM P.O., THODUPUZHA IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.JAYAN V.EAPEN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF - FORESTS, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-691 001. 4. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND, FORESTS NEW DELHI-110 003. 5. THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 001. 6. THE CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE - IIND FLOOR, CHANKAYA BHAVAN, CHANKYAPURI NEW DELHI-110 021, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1,R2 & R5 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER JAMES KURIAN R-3 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOARD R4 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18671 of 2011 ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE VEEKSHANAM DAILY DATED 3.5.2011 EXT.P1 (a): A COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.FC3-910/2011 DATED 20.4.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P3: A COPY OF THE MAP SHOWING FOREST AREAS IN KERALA EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BEFORE THE RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 25-9-2010 EXT.P4 (a): A COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P4 EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT.P4 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER EXT.P5 (a): A COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSATION OF EXT.P5 EXT.P6: A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24-5-2011 ISSUED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER DATED 24-5-2010 EXT.P7 (a): A COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P7 EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 17-7-2010 TO THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM UNCDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT EXT.P8(a): A COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P8 EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM DATED 16-8-2010 EXT.P9(a): A COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P9 EXT.P10: COPY OF THE PROJECT SUMMERY ISSUED IN APRIL 1984 BY THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EXT.P11: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITY EXT.P11 (a): A COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P11 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: /TRUE COPY/ P.S TO JUDGE # **MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.** **-------------------------** W.P. (C ) No. 18671 of 2011 -------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of December, 2013 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Manjula Chellur, C.J Petitioner, claiming to be a public spirited person and responsible citizen of the society being President of Paristhithi Samrakshana Samithy, Muthalakodam is before us. According to him, the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities to control proliferation of wood based industries like saw mills, plywood, veneer and block board factories within 5 kilometres radius of forest, it has led to filing of this writ petition. When the petitioner brought to the notice of the authorities that No Objection Certificates to wood based industries were issued in violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Godavarman Thirumulpad v** . **Union of India** (1997 2 SCC 267], no response whatsoever was shown by the authorities. Therefore, he has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: W.P. (C ) No. 18671 of 2011 **2** “i) to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit-P2 and quash the same; ii) to declare that the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents are not vested with the authority to issue No Objection Certificate to saw mills, plywood, veneer and other wood based industries, without following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and without the concurrence of the 6[th] respondent. iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, directing respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6 to take immediate steps for stopping the functioning of saw mills, plywood, veneer and other wood based industries, which are being conducted without licence/no objection certificate/consent from the requisite statutory authorities; iv) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, directing 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents to conduct a detailed study into the health hazard posed by formaldehyde and other chemicals used for manufacture of glue used in plywood factories and to impose necessary restrictions with regard to the use of such chemicals; v) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, directing the 5[th] respondent to conduct and enquiry into the large scale issuance of No Objection Certificates to saw mills, plywood, veneer and other wood based industries, without conducting site inspection and without following the prescribed procedure.” W.P. (C ) No. 18671 of 2011 **3** 2. In the writ petition, the main concentration seems to be on wood based industries in Ernakulam District situated in Vengola,Rayamangalam and Vazhakulam Panchayats and so also in Perumbavoor Municipality. According to the petitioner, the proximity of these industries is very close to Idukki District. It is contended, unless No Objection Certificate from the Central Empowered Committee is obtained, permission should not be granted, but, authorities are granting such permissions indiscriminately without following any procedure or regulations. It would cause adverse environmental and social impact on the society due to the functioning of the said units. It is complained that there are 677 new applications to be considered and most of these applications are from the above said three Panchayats. The density of population in these Panchayats is so high and that it would affect the environment, in so far as Idukki District is concerned. Due to the effluents generated from the above said industries, the potable water is also polluted which is consumed by the general public. Explaining in detail the **4** W.P. (C ) No. 18671 of 2011 health problems like nausea, allergies which lead to wheezing and other skin problems, petitioner contends that unless there is independent study on this aspect being conducted either by the State Government or the Central Government, no permission to operate wood based industries should be given. 3. As against this, the State has submitted that subsequent to **Godavarman's** case (supra), the State Government, as indicated in the judgment of the Apex Court issued the Rules which is known as the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and Other Wood-Based Industrial Units) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short). This came into effect from 19.4.2012. It is not in dispute that the writ petition came to be filed in 2011. When the direction of the Apex Court alone was in existence, in the said judgment of the Apex Court States were directed to frame necessary Rules. It is also not in dispute that as on the date of filing of the writ petition, certain guidelines evolved by Forest Department dated 24.2.2011 were in force and the authorities who were in charge of issuing W.P. (C ) No. 18671 of 2011 **5** permission either to continue or to start wood based industries had to follow those Rules. As a matter of fact, the petitioner contends, the Guidelines in existence was not an answer to the directions of the Apex Court. They were insufficient in so far as the wood based industries are concerned. Therefore, bringing on record, the components used for manufacturing plywood being 'formaldehyde', a hazardous chemical as listed in the toxic substances in the schedule to the Hazardous Chemical Rules, directions were issued. 4. Subsequent to the writ petition, the present Rules are formulated which clearly defines 'Advisory committee' Appellate Authority, Central Empowered Committee, Large Scale Furniture Unit, Licence, Saw Mill, Round log and other relevant definitions at Rule 2. Rule 3 refers to restriction on establishment of sawmill and other wood based industrial units. Rule 4 indicates restriction on issuance of licence to sawmill and wood based industrial units within five kilometres from the boundary of forest owned by Government. Rule 5 indicates categories of sawmills and W.P. (C ) No. 18671 of 2011 **6** other wood based industrial units as specified in Schedule B. Rule 6 refers to Procedure for obtaining licence. Rule 7 is regarding grant of licence. Rule 8 indicates general conditions for grant of licence. Rule 9 refers to special terms and conditions applicable for grant of licence to sawmill and other wood based industrial unit under various categories specified in Schedule A. It further says what units like sawmills would come under Category 1 and what units like furniture units would come under Category 2. Category 3 refers to small scale units for manufacturing products such as match splints, match box, pencil, slate and photo frame. Category 4 refers to medium scale industrial units using all types of wood for manufacturing products such as packing case, block board etc. Category 5 refers to medium scale industrial units using exclusively rubber wood for manufacturing products such as packing case, block board and tea chest. Category 6 refers to large scale industrial units using all types of wood for manufacturing products such as furniture, veneer, plywood and particle board. Category 7 refers to large scale industrial units using W.P. (C ) No. 18671 of 2011 **7** exclusively rubber wood for manufacturing products such as furniture, veneer, plywood and particle board. Category 8 refers to wood based industrial units exclusively using imported wood. Category 9 refers to institutions which impart training in wood processing and carpentry. 5. Rule 10 refers to how renewal of licence has to be applied and Rule 11 prescribes how the application should be processed. Rule 12 refers to enhancing the capacity of a sawmill or other wood based industrial unit. Rule 13 refers to shifting of a sawmill and other wood based industrial unit. Rule 14 refers to changing the name and style of a sawmill and other wood based industrial unit. Rule 15 refers to how the ownership of a sawmill and other wood based industrial unit has to be informed to the Authorised Officer. Rule 16 refers to when lease or mortgage of the sawmill and other wood based industrial unit is contemplated. Rule 17 refers to suspension of licence. Rule 18 relates to cancellation of licence. Rule 19 provides appeal to the aggrieved person. Rule 20 provides revision to the Government. Rule 21 gives powers to the Authorised W.P. (C ) No. 18671 of 2011 **8** Officer to close down a sawmill and other wood based industries. Rule 22 refers to the requirement of maintaining the register by the licensee. Rule 23 refers to powers of the Authorised Officer or the Forest Officer not below the rank of a Forester having authority to inspect and verify the records or the sawmill and wood industry concerned. Rule 24 refers to obligation on the licensee or the authorised agent to produce the licence/permit etc or inspection/verification whenever called by the Authorised Officer or other Authority. Rule 25 refers to categories which are exempted from wood based cottage industrial units and ordinary operations of artisans and traditional workers engaged in carpentry. Rule 26 refers to constitution and functions of Advisory Committee. 6. Thereafter, different schedules are provided explaining which category falls under which schedule. The explanatory note to the Rules clearly indicate that as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 30.10.2002 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995, the present Rules were framed as there was no statutory Rules existing in the State of Kerala W.P. (C ) No. 18671 of 2011 **9** for the establishment and regulation of saw mills and other wood based industrial units. The details of the Rules referred to above, would take into its ambit each and every aspect ranging from small scale units to large scale units and even provides for exemption to certain cottage industries and artisans. If any particular saw mill or wood based industry is functioning in violation of these Rules, which has not come to the notice of the authorities concerned, it is open to all the parties whether affected or not to bring to the notice of the authority concerned to take suitable action in the light of the provisions already indicated in the above Rules. The contention of the petitioner is, the glue used by the wood manufacturing units is a particular chemical called 'formaldehyde', which is hazardous to the public health. First of all, we do not have any research whatsoever made by the petitioner or someone else at the instance of the petitioner. When glue was permitted to be marketed after manufacturing the same, the concerned authority which regulates the manufacturing of the same presumed to have permitted such marketing only W.P. (C ) No. 18671 of 2011 **10** after verification whether such product would adhere to the existing provisions and procedure applicable to the product in question. It would not be one company but several companies would be manufacturing glues containing this particular chemical. It is not a mere mentioning that this formaldehyde is described as one of the toxic substances in the Chemical Hazardous Rules which would per se compel us to intervene or interfere with the use of the same, but it is the after effects of such chemical and the impact which is causing has to be looked into by the authorities concerned. In the absence of such study report or research being placed before us, we fail to understand how the petitioner could agitate and seek to grant relief No.iv directing respondents to conduct a detailed study. So far as the directions of the Apex Court, as already stated above, the Rules which came into existence in 2012 has taken care of every detail mentioned in the directions of the Apex Court and it is for the concerned authorities to make amendments by deleting or bringing additional rules as and when such occasion arises. Depending upon the facts and W.P. (C ) No. 18671 of 2011 **11** circumstances of the situation, we cannot anticipate framing of Rules which was not in existence and then compel someone to make a provision at the time of happening of such an incident. As of now, what is required is framing of the Rules in question. Therefore, we are of the opinion, there is no need for giving any further direction to any of the authorities except directing them to strictly adhere to the Rules contemplated either for renewal of the licence or for issuance of licence irrespective of the fact whether it is a small scale industry or large scale industry. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- **Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.** **Sd/-** **A.M.Shaffique, Judge.** Ma /True copy/ P.S to Judge