Kerala High Court
K.D.Sebastian vs Divisional Forest Officer on 3 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 25949 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
K.D.SEBASTIAN
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O DEVASIYA KAPPIL HOUSE, N.R CITY P.O.,
RAJAKKAD, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685566
BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
MUNNAR FOREST DIVISION, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 685612
2 FOREST RANGE OFFICER
DEVIKULAM FOREST RANGE OFFICE, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI
DISTRICT, PIN - 685612
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SPL.GP - T.P.SAJAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No.25949 of 2023 :2:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C) No.25949 of 2023
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash
Ext.P4, whereby the licence granted to him for running a sawmill
has been cancelled.
2. It is averred that the petitioner is conducting a saw mill in
Survey No.155/62-2 of Rajakkad Village of Udumbanchola Taluk,
Idukki District from the year 2012 onwards. The petitioner submits
that he has been arrayed as the 3 rd accused in O.R No 11/2023 of
Devikulam Forest Range Office on the allegation of sawing and
keeping wooden logs collected from properties assigned for
cultivating cardamom is in violation of the provisions of Kerala
Preservation of Trees Act. The petitioner submits that he is
running his business after obtaining necessary licence in this
regard as is evident from Exts.P1 and P2. When the petitioner has
arrayed as an accused, the 1st respondent cancelled the licence of
the saw mill as per Ext.P4. The petitioner relies on Rule 17 of the
Kerala Saw Mill Rule, 2021 which reads as follows:
Rule 17 cancellation of license:- (1) The Authorized
Officer may for sufficient and valid reasons to be
recorded in writing, cancel the license granted
under these Rules, if he is convinced that the
license was obtained by misrepresentation or by
suppression of any material fact which otherwise
would have disentitled the licensee from obtaining
the license or the licensee has violated any of the
terms and conditions of license.
(2) The Authorized Officer may also cancel any
license issued under this Rules on receipt of a
report from the State Pollution Control Board to
the effect that the unit is causing health hazard to
the local people.
(3) No order of cancellation of license shall be
passed by the Authorized Officer without giving a
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the
licensee in person and without communicating
reasons for such cancellation in writing to him.
(4) The license issued under these Rules is also
liable to be cancelled if the licensee is found guilty
by a court of competent jurisdiction in an offence
punishable under the provisions of Kerala Forest
Act, 1961 (4) of 1962 or the Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972 (Central Act 53 of 1972) or Biological
Diversity Act, 2022 (Central Act 18 of 2023) or the
Rules made thereunder.
The petitioner would contend that implication in a crime alone is
not sufficient for cancelling the licence and further that the
petitioner was not issued with any notice or afforded an
opportunity of being heard before the issuance of Ext.P4 and in the
said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court
challenging Ext.P4.
3. Heard the learned Special Government also, who upon
instructions submitted that fresh orders will be passed in the place
of Ext.P4, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner and after considering the objections submitted by the
petitioner.
4. Therefore, the above writ petition is disposed of as follows:
Ext.P4 shall be treated as a show-cause notice to which the
petitioner shall file his objections along with all supporting
documents before the 1st respondent within a period of three weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1 st
respondent shall finalise the proceedings within a period of one
month thereafter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to
the petitioner.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sm/
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25949/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE OF THE SAW MILL
OF THE PETITIONER RENEWED ON 22.09.2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY OF RAJAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT
DATED 17.04.2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OCCURRENCE REPORT IN
FORM NO.1 IN O.R NO.11/2023 OF DEVIKULAM
FOREST RANGE OFFICE DATED 15.06.2023
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 25.07.2023 BEARING
NO.M7-1444/14
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(a) True copy of the Form 1 report dated
17/6/2023
Exhibit R2(b) True copy of Mahazar dated 15.6.2023,
16.6.2023, 19.6.2023, 27.7.2023
Exhibit R2(C) True copy of the statement of the
Petitioner recorded by RFO Devikulam.
Exhibit R2(d) True copy of the order of the Honourable
Judicial Magistrate of the First Class
vide Official Memorandum dated 30.6.2023
Exhibit R2(e) True copy of the Letter No. M7-1444/2014
dated 23.11.2022 of DFO Munnar
