ELDO K MATHEW Vs. DEPUTY FOREST CONSERVATOR AND WILD LIFE WARDEN, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P5 order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the 1st respondent, i.e., the Deputy Forest Conservator and Wild Life Warden, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad District, declining No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the stock yard sought to be opened and maintained by the petitioner for stocking building stones. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is conducting a Crusher Unit in Wayanad District. The raw material i.e., the granite stones were not readily available, and therefore, petitioner has taken necessary permission for transporting Granite stones from the State of Karnataka. According to the petitioner, permissions were granted by the concerned departments for purchase of granites from the State of Karnataka. The stones have to be stocked in a convenient place so that in accordance with the requirements, the same can be transported to the Crusher Unit. Thereupon, petitioner has entered into Ext.P1 agreement with one T.P. Sivanandan on 08.06.2016, and on the basis of the agreement executed, petitioner made an application for storage of building granite stones in Form-A before the 2nd respondent i.e., the District Geologist, evident from Ext.P2.

(3.) Thereafter, petitioner requested the 2nd respondent to conduct a site inspection and on the basis of the site inspection, the Geologist found that the western side of the property under lease is abutting the forest land. According to the petitioner, though it is abutting the forest land, there is a well-demarcated compound wall separating the property from the forest land. Thereupon, 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P3 communication dated 02.08.2017, requesting the 1st respondent to clarify whether he has any objection in granting permission for storing the building stones. The 1 st respondent, according to the petitioner, thereupon directed the petitioner to file an affidavit undertaking that he is willing to indemnify the forest department against any losses and risk caused due to the storage of stones. Accordingly, petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 affidavit. Anyhow, after keeping the matter for a few months, 1st respondent has issued Ext.P5, declining the permission sought for by the 2nd respondent. The case put forth by the petitioner is that, based on the directions issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, the surroundings of the Forest has to be declared as Eco-Sensitive Zone. However, the 1st respondent admits that the State of Kerala has not so far notified the Eco-Sensitive Zone. Therefore, the directions issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest has no application in the instant case. Further, the reasoning that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, every project within the radius of 10 Kms. has to obtain permission from the National Board of Wild Life cannot also be sustained, since the buffer zone of 10 Kms. is not so far identified by the State of Kerala. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Ext.P5 cannot be sustained under law.