George vs Assistant Wild Life Warden/Range ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 18037 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
     FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 3049 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          GEORGE
          AGED 55 YEARS
          S/O. DEVASSIA, KUMBLANIKKAL HOUSE, MUTHUKAD,
          CHAKKITTAPARA-673 528

          BY ADVS.
          ALEX.M.SCARIA
          SMT.SARITHA THOMAS
          SMT.T.S.SREEKUTTY



RESPONDENT:

          ASSISTANT WILD LIFE WARDEN/RANGE FOREST OFFICER
          PERUVANNAMUZHI, PERUVANNAMUZHI RANGE OFFICE,
          CHAKKITTAPARA, KOZHIKODE-673 528

          BY ADV.SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT
          PLEADER(FOREST)




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.3049/2021
                                    2

                      P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                -------------------------------
                     W.P.(C)No.3049 of 2021
               --------------------------------
           Dated this the 3rd day of September 2021

                              JUDGMENT

According to the petitioner, he is an

agriculturist and residing at Chakkittapara village,

Kozhikode District. He is an accused in

O.R.No.3/2008 of Peruvannamuzhi Forest Range Office.

The case against the petitioner is that a country gun

was found in a cashew plantation on a hilly track

which was a lease land. The definite case of the

petitioner is that he has no connection with that

country gun and the cashew plantation was an open

area situated far away from his residence.

2. In respect of the same set of facts, the

Peruvannamuzhi Police registered Crime No.63/2008 and

the same was charge sheeted and tried by the

Magistrate court concerned as CC 628/2012. In that

case, the petitioner was acquitted as per Ext.P2

judgment. The case of the petitioner is that, in the

light of Ext.P2 judgment, the prosecution initiated WP(C) NO.3049/2021

by the Forest department based on OR 3/2008 will not

stand.

3. According to the petitioner, in Chakkittapara

area where the petitioner is doing agricultural

activities is affected incessant attacks of vermin

wild animals like monkey, peacock, wild boar etc.

The farmers of that locality are getting injured out

of the wild boar attacks. In such circumstances, the

Government of Kerala issued various notification

enabling the farmers themselves to remove the

harassment out of wild boars. In order to enable the

petitioner to secure the licence for removing the

hurdles out of wild boar attacks in his agricultural

land, the petitioner made an application before the

respondent. The application of the petitioner was

considered along with the application of some other

agriculturist. As per Ext.P1, the application of the

petitioner is rejected. The application of some

other agriculturists are allowed. The reason

mentioned in Ext.P1 to reject the application is that

the petitioner is an accused in OR 3/2008(CC 27/2019

pending before the JFCM-II, Perambra). Aggrieved by WP(C) NO.3049/2021

the same, this writ petition is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest).

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the rejection of the application of

the petitioner as per Ext.P1 is unsustainable. The

learned counsel submitted that simply because the

petitioner is involved in a criminal case, there is

no bar either in the Act or Rules to reject the

application. It is also the case of the petitioner

that, in the light of ext.P2 judgment, the

prosecution now pending before the court is

unsustainable. The learned counsel submitted that

the order rejecting the application of the petitioner

as per Ext.P1 is not a speaking order and the

contentions of the petitioner is not considered while

passing the same.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader

(Forest) seriously opposed the same. The learned

Special Government Pleader submitted that a case is

now pending against the petitioner before the JFCM-

II, Perambra and if the licence is given to the WP(C) NO.3049/2021

petitioner to shoot the animals, he will misuse the

same. The learned Special Government Pleader

submitted that the eligible persons were already

granted permission as per Ext.P1 and the petitioner

is not entitled for the same. The learned Government

Pleader also submitted that, if a person is involved

in criminal cases, that itself is a reason for

rejecting the application and the respondent is

justified in dismissing the application.

7. I perused Ext.P1 order. As far as the

rejection of the application of the petitioner is

concerned, it is not a speaking order. It is simply

stated that the petitioner is involved in OR 3/2008

and therefore his application is rejected. The

petitioner has got different contentions. I do not

want to make any observation about the same. Since

the application of the petitioner is rejected without

a speaking order, I think the matter can be send back

to the authority concerned for reconsideration. The

authority concerned can hear the petitioner and

consider his arguments and thereafter, reconsider the

application in accordance to law.

WP(C) NO.3049/2021

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the

following manner:

i) Ext.P1 order is set aside, as far as the

rejection of the application of the petitioner alone

is concerned.

ii) The respondent will reconsider the

application of the petitioner after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

iii) The above exercise should be completed by

the respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

iv) I make it clear that I have not

considered the matter on merit and the respondent is

free to pass appropriate orders in accordance to law.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

DM WP(C) NO.3049/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3049/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E21357/2020 DATED 30.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC 628/2012 DATED 20/02/2019 BY THE JFCM-II, PERAMBRA.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE