JUDGMENT : Kauser Edappagath, J. The petitioner is the owner of the property having an extent of 21.59 Ares in Sy.Nos. 356/7-2-1 and 356/7-3-1 of Vathikuddy Village in Idukki District. The petitioner purchased the property from one Mrs.Lucy Antony who acquired it as per Ext.P6 Patta dated 31/8/2011 issued in land assignment proceedings in LA 3433/93/53/11 in Form No.6 of the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupations of Forest Lands prior to 1/01/1977) Special Rules, 1993 (for short, the Special Rules, 1993). The petitioner wanted to start a Petroleum Class A & B retail outlet in the above-mentioned property. The 4 th respondent, as per Ext.P2 proceedings, appointed the petitioner as franchisee for the Petroleum Class A & B retail outlet to be set up in the property mentioned above. Thereafter, the 4 th respondent applied to the 2 nd respondent for issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for starting a Petroleum Class A & B retail outlet. The 2 nd respondent rejected the application as per Ext.P4 on the ground that the predecessor in the interest of the petitioner acquired the property under the Special Rules, 1993 and that the said property can only be used for agriculture and building one's own residential house or small shops. While rejecting the application, the 2 nd respondent relied on Ext.P5 Government Order, which interpreted the term ‘shop sites’ in the Special Rules, 1993 as 'small shops'. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash Exts.P4 and P5 and for directions to the 2 nd respondent to issue NOC for the establishment of a Petroleum Class A & B Outlet in the petitioner's property. 2. The 3 rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit opposing the prayer in the writ petition. It is contended that since the petitioner acquired the land in question as per the proceedings under the Special Rules, 1993, no petroleum outlet could be set up therein, and hence, the 2 nd respondent rightly rejected the application. 3. I have heard Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. 3. I have heard Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property in question was acquired by the petitioner's predecessor as per a valid Pattayam issued in accordance with the provisions of the Special Rules, 1993 and Rule 3 of the said Rules permits the utilization of the assigned land as shop site and therefore, rejection of the petitioner's NOC request by the 2 nd respondent and the interpretation of the term shop sites as small shops in Ext.P5 is illegal and unsustainable. The learned counsel further submitted that the rejection of the petitioner's application for NOC based on Ext.P5 cannot be justified as the Special Rules, 1993, do not explicitly limit the establishment of shops to small shops only. The learned counsel also submitted that Ext.P5 is nothing but an expression of opinion and it will not get the colour of statute or rules. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P5 Government Order does not water down the ambit of Rule 3 of the Special Rules, 1993, but it only explains the word 'shop sites' therein. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the petroleum outlet proposed to be put up by the petitioner on his property does not fall either under the term 'shop sites' found in Rule 3 of the Special Rules, 1993 or small shops found in Ext.P5 Government Order. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the status of land assigned under the Special Rules, 1993, remains as forest land even after assignment, and the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 , are applicable to the said land. 5. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 , was enacted with a view to checking further deforestation, which ultimately results in ecological imbalance. Section 2 of the said Act deals with restrictions on the dereservation of forest or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. It says that no State Government or other Authority shall make, except with prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing that any reserved forest or any portion thereof shall cease to be reserved or that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. It says that no State Government or other Authority shall make, except with prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing that any reserved forest or any portion thereof shall cease to be reserved or that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. The Supreme Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Others [ (1997) 2 SCC 267 ] while noting that Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was enacted to curb the deforestation which results in an ecological imbalance, indicated that the provisions incorporated to conserve forests and for other connected matters “must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification”. The applicability of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 , to the forest lands occupied prior to 1/1/1977 came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala and Others ( 2000 KHC 847 ). The constitutional validity of the Special Rules, 1993, was also considered by the Full Bench in the said decision. The Full Bench held that the provisions in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 have no retrospective operation; they operate only prospectively, and hence it shall not affect the forest land divested before the coming into force of the Act as per Special Rules, 1993. The constitutional validity of the Special Rules, 1993, was also upheld. The decision of the Full Bench was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala and Others [ (2009) 5 SCC 373 ]. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader cannot be heard to contend that the status of the land assigned as per the Special Rules, 1993 would remain as forest land and the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 are applicable to the said land. 6. As per Ext.P4 order, the 2 nd respondent rejected the petitioner's request for NOC on the sole ground that in Ext.P5 GO, the Government have given an interpretation to the term 'shop sites' found in Rule 3 of Special Rules, 1993 as 'small shops'. For an easy reference, Rule 3 of the Special Rules, 1993 is extracted hereunder. “3. 6. As per Ext.P4 order, the 2 nd respondent rejected the petitioner's request for NOC on the sole ground that in Ext.P5 GO, the Government have given an interpretation to the term 'shop sites' found in Rule 3 of Special Rules, 1993 as 'small shops'. For an easy reference, Rule 3 of the Special Rules, 1993 is extracted hereunder. “3. Purpose for which lands may be assigned: The lands under these Rules may be assigned on registry for purpose of personal cultivation or for house sites or for shop sites as the case may be.” The term 'shop sites' referred to in Rule 3 is not defined anywhere. A reading of Rule 3 above would show that the intention of the legislature was to assign the land either for personal cultivation or for the house site or for shop sites and nowhere is it limited that the house should be small or big one or shops to be constructed in the shop site is to be with such and such specifications. The term 'small shop' is also not defined anywhere. If the intention of the legislature was to limit the assignment for the purpose of the construction of small shops only, it should have been specifically stated so in Rule 3 itself. When the Special Rules, 1993, do not limit the shop in the assigned property as a small shop, the Government cannot, by Ext.P5 Government Order, restrict the usage of the assigned land only for small shops without amending the Rules. Ext.P5 is only an expression of opinion and does not have the force of law. The interpretation given in Ext.P5 is against the spirit of the Special Rules, 1993. As stated already, the 2 nd respondent refused to give NOC to the petitioner's petroleum outlet only for the reason that in Ext.P5 it was clarified that shop sites in Rule 3 should be read as small shops. Hence, Ext.P4 order passed by the 2 nd respondent rejecting the petitioner's request for NOC on the basis of the interpretation given to the term 'shop sites' in Ext.P5 Government Order is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. Hence, Ext.P4 order passed by the 2 nd respondent rejecting the petitioner's request for NOC on the basis of the interpretation given to the term 'shop sites' in Ext.P5 Government Order is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. The 2 nd respondent has to consider whether the proposed petroleum outlet would fall within the term 'shop sites' in Rule 3, ignoring the interpretation given to it vide Ext.P5, and take a fresh decision on the request of the petitioner for NOC. 7. For the reasons stated above, Ext.P4 order is set aside. The 2 nd respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner's request for NOC in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations made in the judgment and pass an order after hearing the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.