The Hindu : Govt. bid to protect sandal lobby?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Jul 05, 2003

Southern States

Southern States - Kerala

Govt. bid to protect sandal lobby?

By P. Venugopal

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM July 3. Even High Court orders are being made something of a joke as the Government searches for loopholes to help the sandal lobby in the State.

The Forest Minister, K. Sudhakaran, had claimed the other day that his department was powerless to monitor the functioning of the sandal factories, which were thriving on sandalwood smuggled from the Marayur region.

Both on the floor of the State Assembly and at a press conference the same day, he said this was because of a High Court order delivered on July 15, 2002, in a case filed by a sandal factory called Walayar Rural Industries.

According to him, the judgment effectively rendered null and void a 1998 Government Order which insists that the panchayats and the Department of Factories and Boilers could issue or renew licences to such factories only on the basis of `no objection certificates' (NOC) given by the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) having jurisdiction over the area.

``No doubt, the Forest Department is duty-bound to protect the sandal resources of our State. But how can we interfere when there is a court order? As of now, my department can do nothing to stop illicit extraction of sandal oil by these factories, which are functioning purely on the strength of the licences issued by the panchayats and the Department of Factories and Boilers,'' said Mr. Sudhakaran while trying to defend himself against the charge that he is "in collusion with the sandal mafia''.

Citing this judgment as an excuse, the Forest Department has been following a policy of total non-interference towards the sandal factories for the last one year. The Minister, with his statements at various forums from time to time, too had been sending strong signals to the Forest officials not to touch the sandal factories, allegedly being run by people with strong connections in the UDF.

A DFO in Palakkad, who made a totally different interpretation of the court order, invoked the 1998 Government Order and directed the closure of two sandal factories in February, this year. He was booted out of the post within a week's time and his report was dumped, showing how powerful the sandal lobby is.

In its petition in the High Court, the Walayar Rural Industries had mainly made two challenges. One challenge was against the 1998 Government Order, which insists that only on the basis of a NOC issued by the concerned DFOs, could the panchayats and the Department of Factories and Boilers give or renew their licences to sandal factories.

Giving its verdict on this challenge, the High Court makes the following observations:

``Of course, there shall be absolute check of destruction of the forest wealth produce, especially sandalwood. In such circumstances, it cannot be taken that one can commence or continue sandalwood factory based on the licence issued by the local authorities or the Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers as the said authorities are not bound to examine such aspects. In such circumstances, if the Government thought it fit to insist NOC from the DFO as a precondition for issuance of licence by the said authority, it cannot be said to be arbitrary because it is intended to protect the forest produce. The DFO shall always take into account the circumstances and situation pertaining to a particular unit or its proprietor before issuing NOC. Therefore, challenge against Ext. P7 (the 1998 Government Order) shall fail''.

Certainly, there is nothing ambiguous about these observations of the court. To put it in one sentence, the court fully validated the 1998 Government Order and dismissed the petitioner's challenge against it.

The second challenge in the original petition was that the 1998 Government Order "is arbitrary'' since it "does not contain any guidelines for the DFO to grant or decline NOC''. Referring to this aspect of the petition, the court makes the following observation:

``When the DFO has been clothed with the discretion to grant/reject an application for extension of licence or issuance of licence he has to exercise such discretion in a judicious manner depending upon the facts relating to the particular application.

``In this case the DFO has not given NOC on the ground that about 10 occurrence reports (OR) are pending against the petitioner... One each OR has been filed in the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2001 and 2002 and four such reports have been filed in the year 1997... Even the OR of 1994 has not been disposed of... If this history of pendency is taken as the criterion, even by the year 2010 the last among the ORs will not be disposed of... Therefore, on the basis of such pendency of OR for such a long time, it is arbitrary to decline NOC''.

The judgment continues: "Therefore, rejection of NOC to the petitioner solely on the ground that certain ORs from 1994 are pending is totally arbitrary. Hence Ext. P7 (the 1998 Government Order) in O.P. No. 9098 of 1999 is quashed''.

There is nothing complicated about these observations of the court also. The ruling is that the rejection of NOC on the excuse that certain cases were pending against the petitioner for more than eight years is `arbitrary' and that the way the DFO had exercised his powers under the 1998 Government Order in this particular case (`O.P. No. 9098 of 1999') was unacceptable to the court.

At a press conference convened immediately after his efforts to defend the allegations against him, the Forest Minister, waved a copy of this judgment to mediapersons and quoted the last sentence in it. He said: "Listen, this is what the judgement says. Quote `Hence Ext. P7 in O.P. No. 9098 of 1999 is quashed', unquote. The Government Order does not exist. The court has killed it. Tell me how I can check the sandal factories now?''

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Southern States

Stories in this Section

HC directive to Kerala Govt. on Thomas case

No need to withdraw palmolein case: Karunakaran

Govt. bid to protect sandal lobby?

Revised telephone tariff

CPI flays nod for rubber import

SBI planning new products

Fever incidence under control, claims Sankaran

Survey is 'mere documentation', says Census Director

CIA charge `preposterous', says V. Ramachandran