Kerala High Court
P.T. Kunhalikutty vs State Of Kerala on 13 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2022/23RD CHAITHRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 5990 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 P.T. KUNHALIKUTTY
AGED 67 YEARS
PARAYANTHODIKA HOUSE, KALATHINKADAV, HS ROAD,
NILAMBUR P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679329
2 SIVADASAN
AGED 56 YEARS
ODUVATHVALAPPIL HOUSE, KARAD P.O, NILAMBUR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679339
BY ADVS.
THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN
B.SAJEEV KUMAR
BLOSSOM MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
NILAMBUR NORTH DIVISION, NILAMBUR P.O,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679329
3 THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER
NILAMBUR RANGE, NILAMBUR P.O,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679329
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL. G.P. (FOREST)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.5990/2022
:2:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.5990 of 2022
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 13th day of April, 2022
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioners, who are running a sawmill and
furniture manufacturing unit in Kalathinkadav, Nilambur
Village of Malappuram District, seek to declare that the
action of respondents 2 and 3 in closing down the unit of the
petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners seek to
direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to start
functioning of their unit forthwith.
2. The 1st petitioner states that he is running a
sawmill and a furniture manufacturing unit. The unit was
W.P.(C) No.5990/2022
started in the year 1986 with all requisite permissions and
licences. The licence for sawmill was extended from time to
time. Ext.P1 licence for sawmill issued by the Kerala Forest
and Wildlife Department is valid up to 17.02.2023. For the
last five years, the unit is being run by the 2 nd petitioner on
the basis of an agreement with the 1 st petitioner, since the 1st
petitioner is not able to manage the affairs of the unit due to
ill-health.
3. The 2nd respondent required the 2nd petitioner to
appear before him on 24.09.2021. It was alleged that the
teakwood forming subject matter of OR.8/21(N) was stolen
one and the same has been sawn at the unit of the
petitioners on 20.09.2021. Later, the 1 st petitioner received a
letter dated 10.11.2021 of the 2 nd respondent stating that the
1st petitioner had violated the terms contained in Clause 8(1)
of GO 2/2021 dated 12.02.2021. The 1 st petitioner filed his
objection to the notice. A hearing was conducted. To the
knowledge of the petitioners, no orders were passed
thereafter, by the 2nd respondent.
W.P.(C) No.5990/2022
4. On 27.12.2021, the officers under respondents 2
and 3 came, closed down the unit and sealed the same. The
petitioners approached the respondents seeking permission
to reopen the sawmill. According to the petitioners, due to the
closure of the unit, seven workers have been rendered
jobless and the petitioners are suffering huge monetary loss.
5. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the
petitioners have not violated any of the provisions contained
in the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and other
Wood-based Industrial Units) Rules, 2012. The petitioners
have not been convicted of any offence under the Kerala
Forest Act or under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972,
warranting cancellation of licence or closure of the unit. The
respondents have not followed any procedural formalities
before closing the unit. Therefore, the respondents are
compellable to permit the petitioners to start functioning of
the unit.
6. The 2nd respondent filed a statement and
contested the writ petition. The 2nd respondent stated that a
W.P.(C) No.5990/2022
wind-fallen teak tree was found cut down and transported.
Enquiries revealed that the drifted teak tree was cut and
made into pieces and was transported to the petitioners' unit.
Ext.P2 notice was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer.
The petitioners appeared before the 2nd respondent and gave
Ext.P3 statement.
7. The 1st petitioner has transferred the sawmill to the
2nd petitioner without the consent of the authorised officer.
Teak timbers were sawn in the unit of the petitioners without
any pass or declaration issued by the Forest Department.
Therefore, Section 8(1)(i) and Section 8(1)(xiv) of the Kerala
Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and other Wood-based
Industrial Units) Rules, 2012 are violated. The closure of the
unit is therefore justified.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader
(Forests) representing the respondents.
9. The petitioners submit that with regard to the
incident of theft of the teak wood occurred on 20.09.2021,
W.P.(C) No.5990/2022
the petitioners have not violated any of the provisions
contained in the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and
other Wood-based Industrial Units) Rules, 2012. The
pleadings in the writ petition would disclose that a forest
offence OR No.08/2021 was registered on 23.09.2021 in
Nilambur Range. The allegation is that a teak tree from
forest wind fallen to the Chaliyar river was cut down and
transported. The logs of the tree were traced from behind a
house of one Pradeep Kumar K.S. Enquiries reveal that the
drifted teak tree from Chaliyar river was cut into pieces on
20.09.2021 and was transported to the sawmill of the
petitioners by headload. The wood was sawn into 21 pieces
of timber, in the sawmill. From inspection of the sawmill, four
pieces of teak logs were found kept in the sawmill.
10. The Final Enquiry Report submitted by the Range
Forest Officer also found that the tree logs were sawn in
petitioners' sawmill. It was in such incriminating
circumstances that the sawmill was closed.
W.P.(C) No.5990/2022
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners would urge
that as per Section 8(1)(i), the grant of licence under the
Rules, 2012 shall be subject to a condition that the applicant
shall not be a person convicted of any offence punishable
under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 or the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972 or any other enactment relating to
protection of environment or conservation of biological
diversity. Since the petitioners have not been convicted in
OR No.8/2021 or in any other case, the sawmill cannot be
ordered to be shut down.
12. However, it is to be noted that as per Section 8(1)
(xii), the licence of sawmill or other wood-based industrial
units shall not be transferred without the written permission
of the authorised officer. In the present writ petition, the
licence stands in the name of the 1 st petitioner. The 1st
petitioner has admittedly given the sawmill to the 2 nd
petitioner and it is the 2nd petitioner who is running the
sawmill for the last more than five years. Therefore, there is
a clear violation of statutory rules. In the circumstances, this
W.P.(C) No.5990/2022
Court finds that there is ample justification for the
respondents for closing the sawmill of the 1st petitioner.
The writ petition is therefore without any merit and
it is hence dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/06.04.2022
W.P.(C) No.5990/2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5990/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4/03/2020
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
10/11/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER DATED 17/11/2021
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
R2(a) COPY OF FORM I DT 23.9.21
R2(b) COPY OF MAHAZAR DT 23.9.21
R2(c) COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 1
R2(d) COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 2
R2(e) COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 3
R2(f) COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 4
R2(g) COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 5
R2(h) COPY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN PETITIONERS AS LEASE
R2(i) COPY OF ORDER DT 10.3.22
R2(J) COPY OF MAHAZAR DT 27.12.21
R2(k) COPY OF REPORT DT 28.12.21
R2(l) COPY OF 61A FINAL REPORT
R2(m) COPY OF 61b NOTICE DT 20.2.22
