SUNAJA S. GODWIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P13 order rejecting the application of the petitioner for renewal of licence for sawmill/other wood industries is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The petitioner claims that she has been conducting a sawmill under the name and style of 'Nidhi Wood Industries'. According to her, the said unit was purchased by her from the Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC) as per Ext.P1 certificate in an auction conducted by the KFC. She claimed that the industrial unit purchased by her in auction was being conducted in the name and style of 'M/s.Winsor Saw Mill in Panavoor Grama Panchayat from 1995-96 onwards and on the basis of purchase by her on 27.2.2009 from the KFC, she submitted Ext.P2 application on 21.10.2010 for licence for running the sawmill, in the name of Nidhi Wood Industries. It is stated that the Pollution Control Board had granted her consent to establish M/s.Nidhi Wood Industries as per Ext.P3 letter dated 07.11.2009. She had submitted Ext.P4 application for No Objection Certificate from the Chief Conservator of Forest on 14.9.2010. It is stated that as per Ext.P5 letter dated 24.01.2011 the Chief Conservator of Forest had acknowledged receipt of Ext.P4 application and informed her that a decision on it could be conveyed on receipt of the orders from State Level Committee constituted under the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is her further case that she had been running an industrial unit in the name and style 'M/s.Nidhi Industries' for which Ext.P6 SSI registration was granted by the Assistant District Industries Officer on 18.01.2002, for manufacturing of wooden furniture materials. As per Ext.P7 letter dated 26.06.2002 the Divisional Forest Officer, Thiruvananthapuram had given no objection for granting SSI registration to the furniture unit of the petitioner M/s.NIdhi Industries for manufacturing wooden furniture materials in Sreekariyam Panchayat. Whileso, she received Ext.P8 notice from the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram directing closure of the unit stating that the said unit was being run from 2009 onwards without NOC from the Forest Department. It is stated that the petitioner thereupon approached this Court in W.P(c).No.85/2011 and by Ext.P9 judgment this Court had directed the competent authority under Forest Department to consider her application for issuance of NOC and to pass appropriate orders. In Ext.P9 judgment this Court has referred to G.O(P).No.93/99/Forest dated 15.11.1999, according to which all sawmills functioning within 5 kms have to get no objection certificate from the Forest Department every year and in the case of sawmills beyond 5 kms, the no objection certificate should be obtained quinquennial.

(3.) Thereafter Ext.P10 licence was issued to the petitioner under form No.IIA for the period from 07.09.2013 to 06.09.2016, showing the same as renewal for licenced units prior to 30.10.2002. Thereafter, she submitted Ext.P11 application on 22.07.2016 for renewal of licence in Form No.IC under Rule 11. That application was rejected as per Ext.P13 letter dated 23.06.2017 stating that there was no material to prove that Nidhi Sawmill started functioning before 30.10.2002. Therefore, it was stated that renewal of licence cannot be granted to Nidhi Wood Industries and therefore she has to stop the functioning of the said unit. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition at this stage challenging Ext.P13 rejection.