Allowed

B.Maqbool Ahmed, v. The Divisional Forest Officer

Telangana HC18 Dec 2012WP/38102/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition addressed a grievance regarding the non-renewal of a saw mill licence. The petitioner alleged the licence renewal application filed in November 2011 was pending. The court directed the respondent authority to dispose of the application expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to dispose of the application for renewal of licence filed on 29.11.2011 expeditiously and communicate the decision to the petitioner.

B.Maqbool Ahmed, Vs The Divisional Forest Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.38102 of 2012

¶3

Dated: 18.12.2012

Between:

B.Maqbool Ahmed.

…..Petitioner

And

The Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool Division.

¶9

…..Respondent

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.38102 of 2012

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

The petitioner herein was holding licence to run a saw mill in Bangarupeta at Ballary Road in Kurnool town. He was running the saw mill in the name of M/s.Abdul Razzak & Sons Saw Mill. From the earlier place, petitioner’s saw mill was shifted to Plot No.413/C3, after obtaining necessary permission from the respondent, and thereafter, it was shifted to Plot No.413/B3 of Kallur road in Kurnool town.

¶14

In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that when the licence period was coming to end by the end of December 2011, he filed an application on 29.11.2011, seeking to renew the licence as per A.P.Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 framed under the A.P. Forest Act, 1967. It is stated that though the application for renewal of licence is filed by complying with necessary requirements, respondent is not considering the same.

¶15

On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent that the

¶16

application of petitioner is pending, and as much as the saw mill is located within the radius of 5 kilometres from the reserve forest, the petitioner is not entitled for renewal of licence.

¶17

Whether the petitioner is entitled for renewal of licence or not, is a matter to be examined by the respondent-authority, who is competent authority under the A.P. Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969. As it is stated that no orders are passed on the application of petitioner so far, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner on 29.11.2011, for renewal of licence, as expeditiously as possible, and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶18

Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶19

As a sequel, WPMP.No.48327 of 2012 stands closed.

¶20

__________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶21

18^th December 2012 ajr

B.Maqbool Ahmed, v. The Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Maqbool Ahmed, v. The Divisional Forest Officer

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

Dirisala Chalapathi Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, Vs The a.P.Co-operative Tribunal, At Vijayawada, Krishna

Smt. Mambakam Razia Murthy, Vs Narra Hari Krishna

Sri M.BaI Reddy Vs The Special Commissioner/

K.R.v.v.Sanyasi Chetty, Vs The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District.

Taddi Nagalakshmi Vs The Revenue Divisonal Officer

Kuraku Chinna Siddaiah Vs The Superintending Engineer