Kerala High Court
T.K. Antony vs The Divisional Forest Officer on 4 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 31439 OF 2013
NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER:
T.K. ANTONY
PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KOIVILA.P.O., THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM,
PROPRIETOR, ST.ANTONY'S SAW MILL, KOIVILA, THEVALAKKARA,
KOLLAM.
BY ADV SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE
NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT:
THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, KONNI-689 691,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV.
SRI. T.P. SAJAN, SPL GP (FOREST)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 31439 OF 2013
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.31439 of 2013
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 04th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following
prayers:
"(i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P6 and
quash the same:
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction to the respondent
to grant license to the petitioner, for the conduct of
the Saw mill;
(iii) To declare that the petitioner is eligible for the
protection under Rule 9 of the Kerala Forest
(Regulation of Saw Mills & Other Wood Based
Industrial Units) Rules 2012;
(iv) grant such other reliefs as prayed for by the
WP(C) NO. 31439 OF 2013
petitioner in due course which shall be deemed just
and fit;
AND
(v) award the cost of the petitioner." SIC
2. This Court as per Ext.P5 judgment issued
certain directions and consequently Ext.P6 order is
passed. A perusal of Ext.P6 order would not show
that it is a speaking order. The relevant portion of
Ext.P5 judgment is extracted hereunder:
"5. After hearing both the sides, this
Court finds that the respondent has to consider
the applications preferred by the petitioners for
granting NOC and pass 'speaking orders' with
reference to the documents produced by the
petitioners. Accordingly, there will be a direction
to the respondent to consider and pass
appropriate orders on the applications preferred
by the petitioner for granting NOC in accordance
with law, after hearing the petitioners and also
with reference to the documents produced by the
petitioners and additional documents if any, to
WP(C) NO. 31439 OF 2013
be produced by the petitioners, at the earliest, at
any rate, within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Implementation of Ext. P9 in W.P.(C) 22339 of
2013 and Ext. P5 in W.P.(C) No. 22350 of 2013
shall be kept in abeyance till such time.
The petitioners shall produce a copy of this
judgment along with concerned writ petition
before the concerned respondent for further
steps."
3. In the light of the above, I think, the matter
is to be reconsidered by the authority concerned.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with
the following directions:
i. Ext.P6 order is set aside.
ii. The respondent is directed to reconsider the
matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner, as directed by this Court in
WP(C) NO. 31439 OF 2013
Ext.P5 judgment, if the Saw Mill is still
functioning.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 31439 OF 2013
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31439/2013
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1- PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
11.7.06 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL FOREST
OFFICER, PUNALUR.
P2- PHOTOCOPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 14.6.13
ISSUED BY THE THEVALAKARA GRAMA
PANCHAYATH.
P3- PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
25.6.13 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
THEVALAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
P4- PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.7.13 OF
THE RESPONDENT.
P5- PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
11.9.13 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
WP[C]NO.22350/13.
P6- PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.11.13
OF THE RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
