EAPPEN T .THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 21711 of 2016, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.05.2020 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The following were the reliefs sought for by the appellant in the writ petition:-

(2.) Basically the appellant sought to quash Exts. P16, P18 and P19 orders / communications issued by the State Government, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the Additional Chief Secretary dated 26.11.2015, 18.01.2016 and 21.04.2016 whereby the appellant was informed that his application for installation of band saw in sawmill can be considered only after completing the study and submitting a report by the Committee constituted for the purpose of verifying the use of the timber during the period 2014-15. Learned Single Judge has considered the submissions made by the appellant and entered into the finding that the refusal to grant license for any enhanced capacity cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that when the Divisional Forest Officer rejected his application, he had preferred an appeal before the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, which was declined holding that there was no valid ground to consider the request. However, in the revision filed before the State Government, Ext. P16 order dated 26.11.2015 was passed basically stating that in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmill and Other Wood-based Industrial Units) Amendment Rules, 2015, the revision petition filed by the appellant is disposed of with direction to the appellant to apply before the Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee will consider the request of the appellant who installed band saw in Thekkeparambil Sawmill, after assessing the availability of wood from all sources and on satisfaction that adequate quantity of wood is available for the unit as per the Rules 2015.

(3.) Apparently, on the basis of the directions contained in Ext. P16 order, Ext. P17 application was submitted by the appellant before the State Advisory Committee dated 18.12.2015. On receipt of the said application on 18.01.2016, the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests had issued Ext. P18 communication to the appellant stating that the application for enhancing capacity of the unit can be considered only after assessing the availability of wood from all sources by the Advisory Committee. It is also specified thereunder that a work study on wood balance has already started and entrusted to the Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi and the application of the appellant will be considered after getting the wood balance study report from the institute.