Allowed

M/S. Devi Sawmill v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Dec 2023WP/5066/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging cancellation of saw mill license allowed in light of a subsequent G.O. exempting certain wood-based industries from licensing. Court set aside impugned proceedings but preserved the respondents' right to inspect the industry.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings No.739/2009-A2 dated 20.01.2014 set aside; petitioner allowed to run industry without license if compliant with Rule 8 of G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 08.05.2018.

M/S. Devi Sawmill Vs The State of Andhra… — Environment and Pollution | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY. THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 5066 OF 2014

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/S. Devi Sawmill, Rep. by it's Proprietor Reddy Sanjeeva Rao, S/o. Ramakrishna Rao, aged about 39 yrs., Jangareddigudem (V & M), West^{GodavariDistrict.}

¶8

...PETITIONER AND

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Special Chief Secretary, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶10

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry Circle, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

¶12

The Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru Division, Eluru, West Godavari District. 5. The Forest Range Officer, Jangareddigudem Range, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing No.739/2009A2, dt. 20.01.2014 issued by the 4th respondent in so^far as the Petitioner's saw mill License No. 126/1998 which is located in premises situated in R.S.No.617/A of Jangareddigudem (V), West Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also offends Arts. 14, 19(1) (g) & 21 of the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction and act abide the same and consequently restore the license of the petitioner.

¶15

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 6293 OF 2014)

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that^{inthecircumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner^to run the sawmill which is located in premises situated in R.S. No.617/A of Jangareddigudem (V), West Godavari District by suspending the operation of the proceedings bearing NO.739/2009-A2, dt.20.01.2014 issued by the 4th respondent.

¶17

LA. NO: 1 OF 2014(WVMP. NO: 1525 OF 2014)

¶18

Between:

¶19

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Special Chief Secretary, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶20

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶21

The Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry Circle, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

¶22

The Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru Division, Eluru, West Godavari^District. 5. The Forest Range Officer, Jangareddigudem Range, Jangareddigudem, West Godavari District.

¶23

...PETITIONER

¶24

AND M/S. Devi Saw Mill, Rep. by it's Proprietor Reddy Sanjeeva Rao, S/o. Ramakrishna Rao, aged about 39 yrs., Jangareddigudem (V & M), West^{GodavariDistrict.}

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that^{inthecircumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt: 21.03.2014, passed in WP.MP.No.6293 of 2014 in WP.No.5066 of 2014 and pass such other order^or orders as^this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances^ofthecase.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitloner(s) : SRI. VV N NARASIMHAM

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 5 : GP FOR FORESTS

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.5066 of 2014

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶32

...to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing No.739/2009-A2, dated 20.01.2014 issued by the respondent in so far as his saw mill License No.126/1998 which is located in premises situated in R.S.N0.617/A of Jangareddigudem (V), West Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and violative ofprinciples of natural justice and also offends Arts. 14, 19 (1) (g) & 21 of the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction and act abide the same and consequently restore his license....”.

¶33

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the original licensee of the saw mill under the name and style of M/s.Devi Sawmill at Atreyapuram (V), East Godavari District, which was obtained by one M.Somaraju way back in the year 2009, in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Saw Mill (Regulations) Rules 1969. Later, the same was shifted to RS.No.617/A of Jangareddigudem (V), West Godavari, vide proceedings of the respondent in Rc.No. 1402/2009-M4(i), dated 07.02.2010. After installation of the machinery, the 4* respondent visited the sawmill and issued license for the year 2010-2011 and subsequently^the same was renewed from time to time.

¶34

¶35

While things stood thus, the 4* respondent issued a^notice vide Letter No.Sawmills/2013-A2, dated 15.11.2013 calling upon him to submit explanation. For that notice, the petitioner^submitted his explanation, without considering his explanation the respondents passed an order in Rc.No.739/2009-A2, dated 20.01.2014 canceling his license alleging that the establishment of sawmill on transfer is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 11.07.2006. Hence the writ petition.

¶36

On 21.03.2014, this Court passed the following interim^order:

¶37

“directing the respondents to permit the petitioner^torunthe sawmill situated in R.S.No.617/A of Jangareddigudem (V), West Godavari District by suspending the operation of the proceedings bearing No.739/2009-A2, dated 20.01.2014 issued by the 4* respondent.”

¶38

Learned counsel for petitioner, while bringing to the^noticeof this Court that as per G.O.Ms.No.48, Environment Forests Science 85 Technology (Section-II) Department, dated 08.05.2018,^wouldsubmit that in terms of Rule 8 of the aforesaid G.O., the petitioner’s industry ‘ does not require license as his sawmill falls within the parameters fixed in the said Rule and therefore, in terms of the said G.O., which was issued subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. He, thus, prayed to allow the writ petition.

¶39

For better appreciation. Rule 8 of G.O.Ms.No.48, Environment Forest Science 86 Technology (Section-II) Department,

¶40

dated:08.05.2018, which reads as under:

( I

No License required for the following categories of wood based industries:

¶45

1. The following industries/processing plants not using round logs of domestic origin or operating without a band saw or re-saw or circular saw of

¶46

more than thirty centimeter diameter shall not require license.

¶47

Industries/processing plants which use:

¶48

a) Sawn timber, cane, bamboo, reed, plywood, veneers or imported wood, procured from legitimate sources.

¶49

b) block board, MDF or similar wood-based products, procured from legitimate sources.

¶50

c) round log/ timber from species declared as agro forestry/ agricultural crops and/or exempted from the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Produce Transit Rules,^1970.

¶51

1. The above named industries shall register themselves by providing the details in Form-I and should abide by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and rules made there under.

¶52

Learned Government Pleader for Forests, on instructions, while agreeing that in view of the subsequent issuance of G.O.Ms.No.48, the impugned proceedings can be set aside, however, would argue that the right of the respondent authorities to inspect the petitioner’s industry periodically to check whether the petitioner’s industry is satisfying the parameters fixed in Rule 8 of the aforesaid G.O. or not may be preserved.

¶53

In view of the above respective submissions of both the counsel, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings No.739/2009-A2, dated 20.01.2014, issued by the 4th respondent. It is made clear that so long as the petitioner industry complies with the parameters fixed in Rule 8 of G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 08.05.2018, the petitioner can run its industry without the necessity

¶54

¶55

of obtaining license from the Forest Department. It^{isfurthermade} clear that the respondent authorities right to inspect the petitioner’s industry periodically to check whether the petitioner’s industry satisfies the parameters fixed in Rule 8 of G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 08.05.2018 or not and to take necessary action in case^{ofviolationis} preserved. No costs.

¶56

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶57

To,

¶58

//TRUE COPY//

¶59

Sd/- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT RE^^RAR SECTION OFFICER

¶60

The Special Chief Secretary, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology Dept., State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi,^Amaravathi

¶61

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad Hyderabad.

¶62

The Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry Circle, Rajahmundry East Godavari District.

¶63

The Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru Division, Eluru, West Godavari District, rorest Range Officer, Jangareddigudem Range, Jangareddigudem West

¶64

Godavari District.

¶65

One CC to SRI. VV N NARASIMHAM Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for FORESTS, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies ^

Madhu gl

«-vw

HIGH COURT

DATED:13/12/2023

ORDER

WP.No.5066 of 2014

i 0 7 MAY I
'll

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

M/S. Devi Sawmill v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Devi Sawmill v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Sri Sunitha Devi Saw Mill. Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Aman Showkath BEd, College, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal

Vinnamala Mohan Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Pollapothula Venkataramana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

Center For Rural Entrepreneurship Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Savita Devi, D/o. Randhir Singh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh