Remanded

Bijivemula Jaya Subba Reddy v. Prl. Secy., Forest Dept. and 4 Ors.

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Jun 2024WP/20119/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A sawmill licensee challenged revocation of his licence after illicit teak logs were found on his premises without permits. The court held the authorities should have enquired with the third party who admitted dumping the logs before revoking the licence, found a violation of natural justice, and remanded for fresh enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; orders dated 03.03.2017 and 06.05.2017 set aside; matter remanded to DFO (WL) Proddatur for fresh enquiry within four weeks; no costs; pending interlocutory applications closed.

Bijivemula Jaya Subba Reddy Vs Prl. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY .THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE ^ A
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR X
BG
<
PRESENT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 20119 OF 2017

¶6

Between:

¶7

Bijivemula Jaya Subba Reddy. S/o. Penchala Reddy. Aged 44 years. Occ: Owner of Jaya Subba Reddy Saw Mill R/o. H.No.11-485. Sumitranacar. Badvel town. Kadapa district.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh. Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur district.

¶11

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhavan, Sankunthri Residency, Agathavarappadu, Mahatma Gandhi Inner Ring Road, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur.

¶12

The Chief Conservator or Forests, Kurnool Circle,^Kurnool.

¶13

The Divisional Forest Offirer (WL), Proddatur, Kadapa^district.

¶14

The Forest Range Officer, Badvel mandal, Kaclape,^District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction challenging the orders vide Rc.No.1292/2017-M.4,

¶17

¶18

Dt.06.05.2017 passed by the 3rd respondent in confirming^{theordersvide} Rc.No.2594/2003-P7, Dt.03.03.2017 of the 4th respondent as illegal,

¶19

"^arbitrary and set aside the same.

¶20

// LAkNQM OF 2017rWPMP. NO: 24649 OF 2017)

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances}

¶22

Stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to run his Jaya Subba Reddy Saw Mill, R/o.H.No.11- 485, Sumitranagar, Badvel town, Kadapa district by suspending the orders vide Rc.No.2594/2003-P7,^{Dt.03.03.2017} of the 4th respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. SRINIVAS EMANI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR FORESTS (AP)

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

APHC010376382017

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶28

AT AMARAVATI

¶29

[3333]

¶30

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶31

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶32

PRESENT

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO: 20119/2017

¶35

Between:

¶36

Bijivemula Jaya Subba Reddy

¶37

...PETITIONER

¶38

AND

¶39

PrI Secy Forest Dept 4 Ors and Others

¶40

...RESPONDENT{S)

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶42

1.SRINIVAS EMANI

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶44

1.GP FOR FORESTS (AP)

¶45

The Court made the following;

¶46

¶47

ORDER:

¶48

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶49

seeking the following relief:-

¶50

..to a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction challenging the orders vide Rc.No.1292/2017-M:4, Dt 06.05.2017 passed by the 3'^ respondent in confirming the orders vide Rc.No.2594/2003-P7, Dated 03.03.2017 of the 4'" respondent as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the^same...."

¶51

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued license for running sawmill at Badvel Town, Kadapa District, vide Regd. No.2594/2003P7 for cutting logs of wood by machines operated through electricity and the license was existed up to 31.12.2016.

¶52

While the matter being so, on 31.12.2016 at about 12.30 p.m., on the instructions of the Divisional Forest officer. Wild Life, Proddatur, the FRO, Badvel Range, along with other staff members have inspected the petitioner’s sawmill and found illicit teak round logs in the premises^{ofsawmillandwhen} questioned for the necessary documents / permit or receipts pertaining to the said teak logs, the petitioner could not supply the same, as such, an enquiry was conducted duly recording the petitioner statement. Thereafter, an order was passed by the Divisional Forest Officer (WL), Proddatur, vide Rc.No.2594/2003-P7, dated 03.03.2017, revoking the petitioner’s sawmill license, which was further confirmed in the appeal^{inRc.No.1292/21017-M.4} dated 06.05.2017 by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Kurnool Circle, Kurnool. Challenging which, the present writ petition^isfiled.

¶53

<br>

¶54

¶55

The respondent No.4 filed a detailed counter, wherein it is stated that on his instructions, the Forest Section Officer, Bramhanapalli Section along with Forest Beat Officer l/c WPalli beat, ABO, WPalli beat and Protection Watchers have inspected the petitioner’s sawmill on 31.12.2016 at 12.30 p.m. and found illicit Teak round logs in the premises petitioner’s sawmill. It is further stated that when the Forest Section Officer, Bramhanapalli Section, and his staff demanded for connected permits and receipts or permission for possessing the Teak round logs, the petitioner has failed to produce the same and instead of producing the same, the petitioner asked the Forest Section officer as well as staff members to go away from the sawmill when the staff tried to record measurements of the 152 Teak logs.

¶56

It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner along with his two brothers have attacked the staff members and being afraid of the same, the staff members ran away from the petitioner’s sawmill. Thereafter, the Forest Range Officer, Bramhanapalli Section has reported the same to the Station House Officer on 01.01.2017 and the case was registered vide FIR No.02/2017 dated 03.01.2017 for the offence under Section 353, r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (2) (S) of SC, ST amendment Act 2015 against the petitioner and his two brothers for assaulting and obstructing forest staff on duty.

¶57

Along with the counter affidavit, the 4*^ respondent has also filed the copy of the petitioner’s statement, wherein, the petitioner has stated that on 31.12.2016, during lunch time, while the petitioner was at his house, one Mr.Munagala Vijay Kbqiar Reddf Jias informed him on telephone that he has

¶58

/ /■

¶59

¶60

dumped 152 teak logs acquired from his Ac.25-00 cents^ofland near the petitioner’s sawmill and would produce the requisite documents pertaining to the said logs. But, however, during the course of inspection, as the petitioner could not produce any documents/permit to prove that the 152 teak logs are dumped near his sawmill through a valid permit, the respondents after duly conducting an enquiry have rightly revoked the petitioner^{sawmilllicenseand} it was further confirmed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner also.

¶61

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the^{learnedcounsel} appearing for the respondents.

¶62

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has admitted in his statement that one Mr.Munagala Vijay Kumar Reddy^{hasinformedthe} petitioner after dumping those logs near his sawmill,^{theForestofficialsafter} inspected the sawmill and without considering the petitioner statement, have revoked the petitioner's sawmill license, which was further confirmed by the Appellate authority, which is infact is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondents on the same day have took the possession of 152 teak logs and as on today they are in the custody of the Forest Department.

¶63

On a perusal of the petitioner statement which was recorded on 03.02.2017 at DFO’s Chamber, Proddatur, it can be understood that the petitioner himself has admitted that while the petitioner was away from the sawmill for lunch, one Mr. M.Vijay Kumar Reddy has informed the petitioner over telephone that he has dumped 152 teak logs near the petitioner sawmill

¶64

¶65

and would produce the requisite permits arid documents^{pertaining tothose} logs later on.

¶66

When the petitioner himself has admitted that one Mr.M.Vijay^Kumar Reddy has dumped those logs near the petitioner’s sawmill^even without informing him before dumping the same, the respondents^oughttohave issued notice to the said Mr.Vijay Kumar Reddy, who^{isaneighbouring farmer} to establish the fact that whether the statement made by the petitioner is right

¶67

or wrong. But instead of doing so, the respondents have straight away revoked the petitioner’s sawmill license even without^{conductinganyenquiry,} only basing on the petitioner’s statement, which is^{admittedlyinviolationofthe} principles of natural justice. It is also the fact^{that152Teaklogswhichwere} found near the sawmill of the petitioner, were seized by the Forest Department on the same day i.e. on 31.12.2016 and as on today,^{theyareinthecustody} of the Forest Department.

¶68

In that view of the matter, this Court feels it appropriate^{tosetasidethe} order, dated 03.03.2017 passed by the 4‘^ respondent^{aswellasorder,dated} 06.05.2017, passed by the respondent.

¶69

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting^{asidetheorder,} dated 03.03.2017 passed by the 4^'" respondent as well as order dated 06.05.2017 passed by the 3'*^ respondent and the matter^{isremandedbackto} the 4‘^ respondent-The Divisional Forest Officer (WL), Proddatur, Kadapa District, for fresh enquiry by issuing notices.to the^{concerned.Thesaidenquiry}

¶70

¶71

shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶72

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any. in this Writ

¶73

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶74

SD/- K. KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION^mCER

¶75

//TRUE COPY//

¶76

To,

¶77

The Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi,

¶78

Amaravathi, Guntur district.

¶79

The Chief Conservator or Forests, Kurnool Circle, Kurnool.

¶80

-AL

¶81

The Divisional Forest Offirer (WL), Proddatur Kadapa district,

¶82

The Forest Range Officer, Badvel mandal, KaclapE, District.

¶83

One CC to Sri. Srinivas Emani Advocate [OPUC]

¶84

[OUT?^® forests (AP) High Court Of Andhra Pradesh.

¶85

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 18/06/2024

ORDER

WP.No.20119 of 2017

#
m
O. 0- R JUL 20211
Custeni Section

¶92

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Bijivemula Jaya Subba Reddy v. Prl. Secy., Forest Dept. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijivemula Jaya Subba Reddy v. Prl. Secy., Forest Dept. and 4 Ors.

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. Basheer Ahmed, Hindupur, Ananthapur Dist. Vs the Dist.Registrar,Co-Op.Societies, Kadapa Dist., and 3 Otrs.

Nanda Eswaraiah Vs The State of A.P.

Joseph Sriharsha and Mary Indraja Educational Society Vs the Union of India

Tripura Bio Tech Limited. Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Vasantha Kumar Reddy Vs the State of Ap

M. Balakrishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh