Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 3049 OF 2021 PETITIONER: GEORGE AGED 55 YEARS S/O. DEVASSIA, KUMBLANIKKAL HOUSE, MUTHUKAD, CHAKKITTAPARA-673 528 BY ADVS. ALEX.M.SCARIA SMT.SARITHA THOMAS SMT.T.S.SREEKUTTY RESPONDENT: ASSISTANT WILD LIFE WARDEN/RANGE FOREST OFFICER PERUVANNAMUZHI, PERUVANNAMUZHI RANGE OFFICE, CHAKKITTAPARA, KOZHIKODE-673 528 BY ADV.SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER(FOREST) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J ------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.3049 of 2021 -------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September 2021
JUDGMENT
According to the petitioner, he is an agriculturist and residing at Chakkittapara village, Kozhikode District. He is an accused in O.R.No.3/2008 of Peruvannamuzhi Forest Range Office. The case against the petitioner is that a country gun was found in a cashew plantation on a hilly track which was a lease land. The definite case of the petitioner is that he has no connection with that country gun and the cashew plantation was an open area situated far away from his residence.
2. In respect of the same set of facts, the Peruvannamuzhi Police registered Crime No.63/2008 and
the same was charge sheeted and tried by the Magistrate court concerned as CC 628/2012. In that case, the petitioner was acquitted as per Ext.P2 judgment. The case of the petitioner is that, in the
light of Ext.P2 judgment, the prosecution initiated by the Forest department based on OR 3/2008 will not stand.
3. According to the petitioner, in Chakkittapara area where the petitioner is doing agricultural activities is affected incessant attacks of vermin wild animals like monkey, peacock, wild boar etc. The farmers of that locality are getting injured out
of the wild boar attacks. In such circumstances, the Government of Kerala issued various notification enabling the farmers themselves to remove the harassment out of wild boars. In order to enable the petitioner to secure the licence for removing the
hurdles out of wild boar attacks in his agricultural land, the petitioner made an application before the respondent. The application of the petitioner was considered along with the application of some other
agriculturist. As per Ext.P1, the application of the petitioner is rejected. The application of some other agriculturists are allowed. The reason
mentioned in Ext.P1 to reject the application is that the petitioner is an accused in OR 3/2008(CC 27/2019 pending before the JFCM-II, Perambra). Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest).
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the application of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 is unsustainable. The learned counsel submitted that simply because the petitioner is involved in a criminal case, there is
no bar either in the Act or Rules to reject the application. It is also the case of the petitioner that, in the light of ext.P2 judgment, the prosecution now pending before the court is unsustainable. The learned counsel submitted that
the order rejecting the application of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 is not a speaking order and the contentions of the petitioner is not considered while passing the same.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) seriously opposed the same. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that a case is now pending against the petitioner before the JFCM- II, Perambra and if the licence is given to the petitioner to shoot the animals, he will misuse the same. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the eligible persons were already granted permission as per Ext.P1 and the petitioner is not entitled for the same. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that, if a person is involved in criminal cases, that itself is a reason for rejecting the application and the respondent is justified in dismissing the application.
7. I perused Ext.P1 order. As far as the rejection of the application of the petitioner is concerned, it is not a speaking order. It is simply stated that the petitioner is involved in OR 3/2008
and therefore his application is rejected. The petitioner has got different contentions. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Since
the application of the petitioner is rejected without a speaking order, I think the matter can be send back to the authority concerned for reconsideration. The authority concerned can hear the petitioner and consider his arguments and thereafter, reconsider the application in accordance to law.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner: i) Ext.P1 order is set aside, as far as the rejection of the application of the petitioner alone is concerned. ii) The respondent will reconsider the application of the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. iii) The above exercise should be completed by
the respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. iv) I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit and the respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance to law. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DM APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3049/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E21357/2020 DATED 30.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC 628/2012 DATED 20/02/2019 BY THE JFCM-II, PERAMBRA. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE