K ABDUL RAHIMAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court in this second round of litigation; the first having been concluded by Exhibit P17. The petitioner's contention is that there was a sawmill established prior to 2002 and that he should be allowed to continue the same. The learned Special Government Pleader [Forests] even at the earlier instance, opposed the same on the ground that there was nothing to show that there was an establishment of a sawmill prior to 2002, which alone would enable the petitioner to seek for a license from the Authorised Officer as provided in the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Sawmills and Other Wood-based Industrial Units) Rules, 2012 [for brevity "Rules of 2012"]. The petitioner's contentions were also opposed by the land owner and his son, in whose premises the activities were carried on. Negativing the contentions of the landlord this Court, without any observations as to the veracity of the claim raised by the petitioner, directed the Authorised Officer to consider the application filed by the petitioner deeming it to be one filed under the Rules of 2012. The rejection made of the application is impugned herein.

(2.) In Exhibit P17, this Court categorically found that from the documents produced in the said writ petition there was nothing to indicate that the petitioner had established a sawmill prior to 30.10.2002. With respect to the contention of a valid licence having been issued by the local authority, it was found that the petitioner had a packing case unit, which was issued with a licence only in the year 2005-2006. The Municipality, who was also made a party in the earlier writ petition, categorically submitted that prior to or after that there was no licence issued for a sawmill or a packing unit. In fact, the Rules of 2012 specifically provided that any wood based industry which was running with a valid licence from the Local Self Government Institution [for brevity "LSGI"] shall file an application before the Authorised Officer for a licence under the Rules within a period of six months from the date of notification of the Rules. The petitioner had not made such an application despite his assertion that he was carrying on a wood based industry, specifically a sawmill, prior to 2002.

(3.) Even then an application was made in the year 2010, which was produced in the earlier writ petition and also herein; as Exhibit P11. The petitioner was permitted to put forth the contentions of an establishment of a sawmill prior to 30.10.2002 before the Authorised Officer. This was also for reason of the deeming provision as contained in subrule (3) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2012. The deeming provision enabled an application filed before the Empowered Committee or the State Level Committee; for license to continue a wood-based industry which had a license from the LSGI {Rule 6(1)} or for estabishing a new saw-mill or wood-based industry {Rule 6(2)}, to be considered under the Rules of 2012 as one filed under sub-rule (1) or (2). Before such consideration, it was thought fit that the petitioner should approach the Municipality and obtain a (i) permission to establish and (ii) a D&O Licence; after which only the Authorised Officer could consider the application. The petitioner, in that process was also asked to approach the Kerala State Pollution Control Board [for brevity "PCB"] for a Consent to Establish and Operate. The objection raised by the landlords with respect to absence of consent from the landlord was negatived by this Court. This Court, relying on Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum, 2016 3 KerLT 247 (SC)], found that when a lessee has been validly inducted into a premises and also obtained a licence from the local authority, for renewal or even for a fresh application there should be no insistence for a consent from the landlord.