Haseena Beevi vs Divisional Forest Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 14056 Ker

Kerala High Court

Haseena Beevi vs Divisional Forest Officer on 28 May, 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
  TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                     WP(C) NO. 17632 OF 2017
PETITIONER:

            HASEENA BEEVI
            AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.LATE NAZEEM, NAZEEM MANZIL,
            VELLANCHIRA, PANAVOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 568.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS
            SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER

RESPONDENTS:

    1       DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, DIVISIONAL FOREST
            OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
    2       RANGE FOREST OFFICER
            PALODE DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 562.
    3       ADDL.R3: THE PANAVOOR PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY
            ITS SECRETARY, PANAVOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 568 (ADDL.R3 IS
            IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 4/7/17 IN IA
            NO.9876/17)
            BY ADVS.
            SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
            SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
            SRI.MANU V.
            SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
            SRI.G.P.SHINOD
            SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL.GP(FOREST)


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   28.05.2024,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.17632 of 2017

                                     2


                 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
         ---------------------------------------------
                W.P.(C) No. 17632 of 2017
     ------------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024


                             JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following

reliefs:

"i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction to the 1 st respondent to pass order in accordance with the direction of this Hon'ble Court on the basis of Ext. P-8 and P-9.

ii) to issue any such other writ order or direction this Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case; and to award the cost of petition."[SIC]

2. When this Writ petition came up for

consideration on 01.06.2017, this Court passed the

following order:

"Admit.

2. The learned Spl. Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

3. It is seen that the petitioner is not being

issued the licence applied for by her to start a sawmill on the ground that the location of the proposed sawmill is within 5 kms. from the forest. The petitioner relies on Ext.P8 measurement made by the Taluk Surveyor in the presence of the forest officials to contend that the proposed location is beyond 5 Kms. from the forest. As per Ext.P8 survey, the distance is found to be 5.098 kms. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that the Forest Department sought certain clarifications on the survey made as per Ext.P8 from the Forest Mini Survey Team. It is pointed out that it is for want of clarifications from the Forest Mini Survey Team that the licence is not being issued to the petitioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be an interim order directing the respondents concerned to obtain necessary clarifications from the Mini Survey Team within three weeks from today. If the respondents are unable to get clarifications in this regard within the aforesaid time, the petitioner shall be granted the licence applied for by her provisionally subject to the outcome of the writ petition."

3. Thereafter, on 20.07.2017, this Court passed

the following order:

"It is seen that the respondents have not obtained necessary clarifications from the Mini Survey

Team within three weeks from 01.06.2017, as directed in the interim order passed by this Court on the said day. In the circumstances, there will be an interim order directing the third respondent to issue the licence applied for by the petitioner provisionally, pending adjudication of the writ petition."

In the light of the above orders, it is submitted

that the license is issued to the petitioner and the unit

is functioning. Hence, I am of the considered opinion

that this Writ petition need not be retained here. If

there is any statutory violation from the side of the

petitioner while conducting the sawmill in the present

place, the respondents can initiate fresh proceedings

with notice to the petitioner, in accordance with law.

With the above observation and retaining the

orders passed by this Court, this Writ petition is

disposed of.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DM

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17632/2017

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.9254 OF 2014 DATED 31-3-2014. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 14-3- 2013.

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 28-2- 2014.

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY B.SREEKUMARAN NAIR, DATED 11-4- 2014.

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY B.SREEKUMARAN NAIR, DATED 16-6- 2014.

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5-10- 2015 IN WPC.NO.2271/2015. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2-12- 2016.

EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10-2- 2017 ALONG WITH THE SKETCH EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3-4-2017. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE