MATHEW THOMAS Vs. K.A.JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Right to conduct a sawmill, in the property concerned, is the subject matter of dispute. When the owner of the property contends that he is having all the requisite licenses and has been operating the unit as above, the rival party [nearby inhabitant] contends that the licence was obtained in a fraudulent manner availing the concession given to the units which were functioning before 30.10.2002; whereas the owner of the property admittedly purchased the land and building situated therein only in the year 2010 and no sawmill was in existence at any point of time. As it stands so, the law laid down by a Full Bench of the Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and others [(2002) 9 SCC 502 = 2002 (9) Scale 81] was to be given effect to and if at all any licence was to be given/obtained, it was to be based on a new application and only on satisfying the requirements/credentials specified in this regard.

(2.) Obviously, the two appeals arise from the common judgment whereby two different writ petitions filed by the opposite sides were considered together and disposed of. Writ Appeal No. 2239 of 2015 filed by the appellant/objector/nearby inhabitant is to the extent he is aggrieved of the direction given by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4460 of 2014 in favour of the sawmill owner; whereas other appeal [W.A. No. 1746 of 2015] has been preferred by the 'Owner of the Sawmill', to the extent he is aggrieved. W.A. No.2239 of 2015 is treated as the lead case and the parties and proceedings are referred to as given therein. Rival parties are referred to as the 'owner' [owner of the saw mil] and the 'objector' [nearby inhabitant] for convenience of reference.

(3.) Heard Sri. E. K. Nandakumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent in W.A. No. 2239 of 2018 [owner], who happens to be the appellant in other appeal [W.A. No. 1746 of 2015]; Mr. James Kurien, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. 2239 of 2015 [objector], who happens to be the first respondent in the other appeal. We heard Mr. Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned special Government Pleader appearing for the Forest Department; Sri. Siby Chenappady, the learned standing counsel for the Local Authority and also Mr. T. Naveen, the learned standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board.