Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

N.P.Mathappan. Vs. the Chief Conservator of Forests.

N.P.Mathappan. vs The Chief Conservator of Forests.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 24, 2010
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/916928

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP(C).No. 34505 of 2010(K)
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL, J.] This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act. against the Judgment and Award dated: 29/1 1/2006 passed in MVC No. 4382/2004 on the file of the XI Additional Judge. Court of Small Causes. Member. MACT, Metropolitan Area. Bangalore. (SCCH-12), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation ...

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

N.P.Mathappan.

Advocate SRI.M.C.JOHN, Adv.

Respondent

The Chief Conservator of Forests.

Legal References

Reported In
ILR2010(4)Ker146

Excerpt

[mr. justice b.s. patil, j.] this mfa is filed u/s 173(1) of mv act. against the judgment and award dated: 29/1 1/2006 passed in mvc no. 4382/2004 on the file of the xi additional judge. court of small causes. member. mact, metropolitan area. bangalore. (scch-12), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation with 12% interest.1. petitioners in these writ petitions are conducting saw mills. according to them, they have obtained valid licences also. 2. in these writ petitions, they contend that although both of them had made applications for renewal of their nocs and while orders are awaited, they have been issued stop memos requiring shutting down their industrial units. it is in the above circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. 3. in so far as w.p.(c) no.34505/2010 is concerned, learned government pleader confirms that the application for renewal dated 14-06-2010 has been received from the petitioner. according to the learned government pleader, applications which have received prior to 13-11-2010 have already been considered. 4. in so far as w.p. (c) no.34697/2010 is concerned, ext.p6 is the application made by the petitioner. it is dated 01-11-2010. it is averred in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that subsequent to the filing of the application, the stop memo was served on the petitioner on 13-11-2010. thus, pendency of the application is prima facie proved. 5. in that view of the matter, i feel it is only appropriate that until the state level committee considers the applications made by the petitioners in these writ petitions for renewal of the nocs and communicate orders thereon to the respective petitioners, the stop memos now issued to them shall not be implemented. with this direction, these writ petitions are disposed of. 6. needless to say that in the meanwhile, the activities carried on by the petitioners shall be confined what are permitted under the original licences issued to them.

Full Judgment

1. Petitioners in these writ petitions are conducting saw mills. According to them, they have obtained valid licences also.

2. In these writ petitions, they contend that although both of them had made applications for renewal of their NOCs and while orders are awaited, they have been issued stop memos requiring shutting down their industrial units. It is in the above circumstances, this writ petition has been filed.

3. In so far as W.P.(C) No.34505/2010 is concerned, learned Government Pleader confirms that the application for renewal dated 14-06-2010 has been received from the petitioner. According to the learned Government Pleader, applications which have received prior to 13-11-2010 have already been considered.

4. In so far as W.P. (C) No.34697/2010 is concerned, Ext.P6 is the application made by the petitioner. It is dated 01-11-2010. It is averred in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that subsequent to the filing of the application, the stop memo was served on the petitioner on 13-11-2010. Thus, pendency of the application is prima facie proved.

5. In that view of the matter, I feel it is only appropriate that until the State Level Committee considers the applications made by the petitioners in these writ petitions for renewal of the NOCs and communicate orders thereon to the respective petitioners, the stop memos now issued to them shall not be implemented. With this direction, these writ petitions are disposed of.

6. Needless to say that in the meanwhile, the activities carried on by the petitioners shall be confined what are permitted under the original licences issued to them.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial