Suresh Mathew vs Principal Chief Conservator Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3866 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
     TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1944
                      WP(C) NO. 10257 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          SURESH MATHEW,
          AGED 62 YEARS,
          NEDUMCHIRAYIL HOUSE,
          S.H. MOUNT P.O,
          KOTTAYAM-686 006.

          BY ADV SRI.MATHEW PHILIP


RESPONDENT:

          PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
          PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT,
          FOREST HEADQUARTERS,
          VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM-695 014.

          SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FOREST)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.10257/2022

                                   2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th day of April, 2022

The petitioner, who is an A Class Forest

Contractor, has approached this Court seeking to direct the

respondent to consider Exts.P2 and P5 representations

submitted by him, within a time limit fixed by this Court.

2. The petitioner states that he has undertaken the

contract work for extraction of timber from the dead and

wind fallen trees within Begur Range in North Wayanad

Division. The petitioner has to transport the timber as per

the conditions of the contract. The petitioner states that

there were altogether seven agreements.

3. According to the petitioner, once a tree is fallen, it

has to be cut into pieces, each piece numbered and WP(C)No.10257/2022

stocked at convenient size. Only after verification by the

Forest Range Officials, it can be removed. The Forest

Range Officer, however, insisted that he should verify the

timber immediately after felling and only thereafter it can be

stocked. This causes considerable delay to execute the

work within the specified time period.

4. The petitioner has to complete the work within

the time stipulated in the agreements. If the order of the

Forest Range Officer is adhered to, the petitioner will not be

able to complete the work in time. In the circumstances, the

petitioner submitted Exts.P2 and P5 representations to the

respondent. The representations submitted by the

petitioner are not considered. Therefore, the petitioner is

before this Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader

(Forest) for the respondent.

WP(C)No.10257/2022

5. The learned Special Government Pleader

submitted that since Exts.P2 and P5 representations have

been submitted by the petitioner, the same can be

considered and a decision taken thereon in accordance with

law.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed

of directing the respondent to consider Exts.P2 and P5

representations submitted by the petitioner and take a

decision thereon, within a period of two weeks.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR WP(C)No.10257/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10257/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT NO. 16/2021-22 DATED 12.8.2021.

    Exhibit P2           TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
                         19.2.2022     ADDRESSED    TO     THE
                         RESPONDENT.
    Exhibit P3           TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
                         DATED 24.02.2022.
    Exhibit P4           TRUE COPY OF ESTIMATE FOR THE COST OF

EXTRACTION OF DRIED TEAK TREES FROM 1969 TP ALATHOOR.

    Exhibit P5           TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
                         25.1.2022     ADDRESSED    TO     THE
                         RESPONDENT.
    Exhibit P6           TRUE COPY OF POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
                         DATED 29.1.2022.


    SR