P.T. Kunhalikutty vs State Of Kerala

N.Nagaresh, J

The petitioners, who are running a sawmill and furniture manufacturing unit in Kalathinkadav, Nilambur Village of Malappuram District, seek to declare that the action of respondents 2 and 3 in closing down the unit of the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners seek to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to start functioning of their unit forthwith.

The 1st petitioner states that he is running a sawmill and a furniture manufacturing unit. The unit was started in the year 1986 with all requisite permissions and licences. The licence for sawmill was extended from time to time. Ext.P1 licence for sawmill issued by the Kerala Forest and Wildlife Department is valid up to 17.02.2023. For the last five years, the unit is being run by the 2nd petitioner on the basis of an agreement with the 1st petitioner, since the 1st petitioner is not able to manage the affairs of the unit due to ill-health.

The 2nd respondent required the 2nd petitioner to appear before him on 24.09.2021. It was alleged that the teakwood forming subject matter of OR.8/21(N) was stolen one and the same has been sawn at the unit of the petitioners on 20.09.2021. Later, the 1st petitioner received a letter dated 10.11.2021 of the 2nd respondent stating that the 1st petitioner had violated the terms contained in Clause 8(1) of GO 2/2021 dated 12.02.2021. The 1st petitioner filed his objection to the notice. A hearing was conducted. To the knowledge of the petitioners, no orders were passed thereafter, by the 2nd respondent.

On 27.12.2021, the officers under respondents 2 and 3 came, closed down the unit and sealed the same. The petitioners approached the respondents seeking permission to reopen the sawmill. According to the petitioners, due to the closure of the unit, seven workers have been rendered jobless and the petitioners are suffering huge monetary loss.

The counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have not violated any of the provisions contained in the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and other Wood-based Industrial Units) Rules, 2012. The petitioners have not been convicted of any offence under the Kerala Forest Act or under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, warranting cancellation of licence or closure of the unit. The respondents have not followed any procedural formalities before closing the unit. Therefore, the respondents are compellable to permit the petitioners to start functioning of the unit.

The 2nd respondent filed a statement and contested the writ petition. The 2nd respondent stated that a wind-fallen teak tree was found cut down and transported. Enquiries revealed that the drifted teak tree was cut and made into pieces and was transported to the petitioners' unit. Ext.P2 notice was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer. The petitioners appeared before the 2nd respondent and gave Ext.P3 statement.

The 1st petitioner has transferred the sawmill to the 2nd petitioner without the consent of the authorised officer. Teak timbers were sawn in the unit of the petitioners without any pass or declaration issued by the Forest Department. Therefore, Section 8(1)(i) and Section 8(1)(xiv) of the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and other Wood-based Industrial Units) Rules, 2012 are violated. The closure of the unit is therefore justified.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) representing the respondents.

The petitioners submit that with regard to the incident of theft of the teak wood occurred on 20.09.2021, the petitioners have not violated any of the provisions contained in the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and other Wood-based Industrial Units) Rules, 2012. The pleadings in the writ petition would disclose that a forest offence OR No.08/2021 was registered on 23.09.2021 in Nilambur Range. The allegation is that a teak tree from forest wind fallen to the Chaliyar river was cut down and transported. The logs of the tree were traced from behind a house of one Pradeep Kumar K.S. Enquiries reveal that the drifted teak tree from Chaliyar river was cut into pieces on 20.09.2021 and was transported to the sawmill of the petitioners by headload. The wood was sawn into 21 pieces of timber, in the sawmill. From inspection of the sawmill, four pieces of teak logs were found kept in the sawmill.

The Final Enquiry Report submitted by the Range Forest Officer also found that the tree logs were sawn in petitioners' sawmill. It was in such incriminating circumstances that the sawmill was closed.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that as per Section 8(1)(i), the grant of licence under the Rules, 2012 shall be subject to a condition that the applicant shall not be a person convicted of any offence punishable under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 or the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 or any other enactment relating to protection of environment or conservation of biological diversity. Since the petitioners have not been convicted in OR No.8/2021 or in any other case, the sawmill cannot be ordered to be shut down.

However, it is to be noted that as per Section 8(1) (xii), the licence of sawmill or other wood-based industrial units shall not be transferred without the written permission of the authorised officer. In the present writ petition, the licence stands in the name of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner has admittedly given the sawmill to the 2nd petitioner and it is the 2nd petitioner who is running the sawmill for the last more than five years. Therefore, there is a clear violation of statutory rules. In the circumstances, this Court finds that there is ample justification for the respondents for closing the sawmill of the 1st petitioner.

The writ petition is therefore without any merit and it is hence dismissed.