High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions disposed with directions to cons...
V.O. Joseph v. State of Kerala and Others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.18369 of 2011 (U)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- ANTONY DOMINIC
- Judgment Date
- 2011-07-08
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petitions are disposed with directions that the Chief Conservator of Forest shall consider the pending NOC applications and pass orders within eight weeks, with communication to the petitioners. Until such orders are passed, status quo as of the notices of closure shall be maintained. Petitioners may continue only activities permissible under their licences and not beyond them.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petitions disposed with directions to consider NOC applications and maintain status quo until orders are communicated; petitioners are allowed to continue only under existing licences within permissible activities.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- V.O. Joseph
Respondents
- State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary, Department of Forest and Wildlife, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
- Divisional Forest Officer, Ranni, Pathanamthitta District-689 672
- Forest Range Officer, Ranni, Pathanamthitta District-689 645
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. T. I. Abdul Salam
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. Benny Varghese
Case Synopsis & Summary
These petitions challenge notices to close down wood-based industrial units in view of an order of this court (30.6.2011) and the post-Godavarman regime requiring NOC from a Central/State Empowered Committee. The petitioner, V.O. Joseph, runs a saw mill with SSI registration since 1987, and his unit along with several others claimed to be functioning for years under local licences without a valid NOC from the State Level Empowered Committee. The records (Exts. P1–P5) show registrations, licences, and applications for NOC (Exts. P4–P8), while Ext. P6 references a 2005 Kerala High Court judgment in W.A. No.1593/1999. The respondents contend that, following the apex court’s judgment in Godavarman Thirumalpad, no wood-based unit can operate without an NOC and that the State Level Empowered Committee is the competent authority to issue or verify such NOCs. The court acknowledges that several units existed prior to 30.10.2002 and that many are still pending NOC despite long operation. However, it emphasizes that a sudden closure would ruin the petitioners’ livelihoods. Accordingly, the court disposes of the writ petitions with directions to the Chief Conservator of Forest to consider the pending NOC applications and to pass orders within eight weeks, while maintaining status quo until those orders are communicated. The order permits activities only to the extent allowed by existing licences.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that closure notices are issued in the wake of the 30.6.2011 order and the post-Godavarman regime, but their units have been in existence for decades with valid local licences and pending NOC applications. They urge the Court to permit continued operation under licensed activities while the NOC applications are processed, and to refrain from abrupt closures which would ruin livelihoods. They rely on Exts. P1–P5 showing registrations and licences and Exts. P4–P8 showing NOC applications and verification.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents submit that post-Godavarman, no wood-based unit can function without an NOC from a competent authority and that the State Level Empowered Committee is the proper body to issue/verify such NOCs. They point to the pending NOC applications and the possibility of unauthorized units, arguing that closure notices are necessary to enforce the regime.”
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India and Others | 2002 (9) SCALE 81 | Positive | Cited as the controlling Supreme Court decision establishing that after 30.10.2002 no saw mill or furniture unit can operate without an NOC from the Central Empowered Committee, a regime subsequently delegated to the State Level Empowered Committee. |
| W.A. No.1593/1999 and connected cases | W.A. No.1593/1999 | Mentioned Only | Ext.P6 references this Kerala High Court judgment; the current judgment cites it but does not discuss or apply its principles in detail. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against V.O. Joseph v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT :**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC**
**FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933**
**WP(C).No. 18369 of 2011(U)**
**---------------------------------------**
**PETITIONER:**
- **-------------------**
**V.O.JOSEPH, VALAYANATTU HOUSE, NELLICKONAM P.O., RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.**
**BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM.**
**RESPONDENTS:**
**------------------------**
**1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILD LIFE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**
**2. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 672.**
**3. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645.**
**R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY VARGHESE.**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2011, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.18637/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **W.P.(C). NO.18369/2011-U:**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:**
**EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DTD. 27/02/1987 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA.**
**EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.4 OF 1989-90 DTD. 28/02/1989 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.**
**EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LICENCE DTD. 30/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS, KOLLAM TO THE PETITIONER.**
**EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR N.O.C. DTD. 23/06/2010 WITH ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE STATE EMPOWERED COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**
**EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 23/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.**
**EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 25/01/2005 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.A. NO.1593/1999 AND CONNECTED CASES.**
**EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 04/07/2011 FROM THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER.**
## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.**
## **//TRUE COPY//**
## **P.S. TO JUDGE.**
**Prv.**
## **ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------------------**
## **W.P.(C) Nos. 18369, 18419, 18456, 18562 and 18637 OF 2011 -----------------------------------------------------**
## **Dated this the 8[th] day of July, 2011**
## **J U D G M E N T**
The issues raised in these writ petitions are common and therefore these cases were taken, heard and are being disposed of together by this judgment.
2. Petitioners in these writ petitions are aggrieved by the notices issued by the respondents, relying on an order of this court in W.P.C.9155/2007 dated 30.6.2011, to which they are not parties. By these notices, on the allegation that, in view of the aforesaid order of this court and as the petitioner's wood based industrial units are not having NOCs. issued by the State Level Empowered Committee, they have been called upon to close down their respective units.
3. It is not a matter of dispute that in view of the Apex Court judgment in **T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India and Others (2002 (9) SCALE 81)** , after 30.10.2002 no saw mill or furniture unit can be permitted to function
## **W.P.(C) No. 18369 OF 2011**
**& con cases :2 :**
without obtaining NOC issued by the Central Empowered Committee and that power has since been delegated to the State Level Empowered Committee. Subsequently the Government also issued orders regulating the issuance of NOCs. to the units like that of the petitioner's. But it is a fact that to the knowledge of the respondents several units were functioning without NOCs and this requirement apparently was not insisted.
4. I shall now make reference to the facts in the individual cases.
5. As far as WPC 18369/11 is concerned, petitioner is the proprietor of a saw mill which has obtained SSI registration as early as on 27.2.1987, and Ext.P1 is the registration certificate. Ext.P2 licence was issued by the Panchayath on 28.2.1989 which is stated to have been renewed up to the year 2010-2011. They made the application for NOC to the State Level Empowered Committee and Ext.P4 is the verification report. It is while so, they were issued closure notice, a copy of which is Ext.P7.
6. In so far as WPC 18562/11 is concerned, Ext.P1 SSI Registration Certificate shows that the saw mill commenced production as early as on 15.6.1998. Ext.P2 is the copy of NOC
**W.P.(C) No. 18369 OF 2011 & con cases :3 :**
dated 9.10.1997 issued by Divisional Forest Officer concerned. Ext.P3 is dated 21.3.2000, is the licence issued by the Panchayath and Ext.P5 is the 'Consent to Operate' issued by Kerala Pollution Control Board. The petitioner herein made an application for NOC the receipt of which is acknowledged by Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 is the verification report submitted by the 3[rd] respondent. It is while the matters stood so, the petitioner herein was issued Ext.P9 notice of closure.
7. Coming to the facts of WPC 18456/11, there are three petitioners in this writ petition. Ext.P1 dated 9.12.97 is the NOC obtained by the first petitioner and Ext.P2 is the Panchayath licence issued in favour of the first petitioner as early as on 11.8.1998. Ext.P3 Postal receipt shows that he made an application for NOC which is pending before the State Level Empowered Committee.
8. Coming to the case of the 2[nd] petitioner, Ext.P4 NOC was issued in his favour on 29.12.93 and Ext.P5 SSI Registration was obtained by him on 24.11.1994. Ext.P6 is the copy of the Panchayath licence issued to the petitioner in 1994. He also made application for NOC, acknowledgment of which is Ext.P7 dated 17.12.2010 and the verification report is Ext.P8 dated 26.4.2011.
## **W.P.(C) No. 18369 OF 2011 & con cases :4 :**
9. In so far as the 3[rd] petitioner's unit is concerned Ext.P9 is the NOC issued in his favour on 2.7.1997 and Ext.P10 is the SSI registration issued on 27.5.1981. That SSI registration is seen to have been transferred to the 3[rd] petitioner herein as per Ext.P10(a). Ext.P11 is the certificate issued by the Panchayath and Ext.P11(d) licence issued by the Panchayath shows that the unit is functioning with the licence issued by the local body. He applied for NOC, the receipt of which is seen acknowledged by Ext.P12 dated 7.6.2011 which is acknowledged by Ext.P13. It is while so petitioners were issued Ext.P14 (a) and (b) notices of closure.
10. Coming to the case of the petitioner in WPC 18419/11, Ext.P1 NOC was obtained on 22.11.1995 and he made application for NOC, a copy of which is Ext.P3 dated 6.6.2011. Ext.P2 licence issued by Municipality shows the unit has a valid licence. It is stated that he has not so far been issued any notice as in the case of the other petitioners but he apprehends that a notice will be served on him at any time.
11. In so far as WPC 18637/11 is concerned there are four petitioners. As far as the first petitioner in this writ petition is concerned, Ext.P1 is the registration obtained from the District Industries Center, Idukki which indicates that the
## **W.P.(C) No. 18369 OF 2011 & con cases :5 :**
unit commenced activities from 10.10.2001. The first petitioner has filed application for NOC. Verification has been conducted by the respondents and Ext.P8 is the copy of the verification report. This also indicates that the unit was not in existence prior to 30.10.2002.
12. As far as 2[nd] petitioner is concerned Ext.P3 dated 14.8.2000 is a copy of the licence issued by the Adimaly Grama Panchayath. He also has made application for NOC. Verification was conducted and Ext.P9 is the verification report, which also states that the unit was in existence prior to 30.10.2002.
13. Coming to the 4[th] petitioner, Ext.P4 dated 12.2.88 is the copy of the Panchayath licence and according to him it was renewed from time to time. 4[th] petitioner also applied for the issuance of NOC. Ext.P10 is the verification report, which indicates that the unit was in existence prior to 30.10.2002.
14. As far as the 4[th] petitioner is concerned Ext.P6 licence issued by the Panchayath is dated 4.4.1997. 4[th] petitioner also made application for NOC and Ext.P11 verification report indicates the existence of the unit prior to 30.2.2002.
## **W.P.(C) No. 18369 OF 2011**
**& con cases :6 :**
15. Prima facie, on the materials available in these cases, I am satisfied that these units were in existence as on 30.1.2002. These units have also applied for NOC and in most of these cases verification also has been completed, it is at that stage the notices of closure has been issued.
16. A close reading of the order passed by this court on 30.6.2011 in WPC 9155/07 shows that the order was issued in the context of certain unauthorized plywood industries functioning in and around Perumbavoor area. Though I have serious doubts whether the order has any relevance in these cases, in the nature of the order I propose to pass, I do not think it necessary for me to pronounce any final order on that aspect.
17. As I have already stated petitioners have been running their establishments for the last several years and considering the fact that, their applications for NOC are pending, I do not find any justification for suddenly closing down their industrial units and driving them out of the business. Therefore I dispose of the writ petitions with the following directions.
18. The Chief Conservator of Forest, the competent authority to deal with the applications for NOC, shall consider
## **W.P.(C) No. 18369 OF 2011**
**& con cases :7 :**
the applications made by the petitioners, and orders thereon shall be passed and communicated to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that until orders are passed and communicated to the petitioners, status quo prior to the issuance of notices of closure mentioned above shall be maintained.
Needless to say that this order will enable the petitioners only to carry on activities which are permissible under the licences obtained by them and nothing beyond that.
## Sd/- **ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE**
ul/-
[true copy]
_P.S. to Judge_