( 1 ) THE Divisional Forest Officer, kaghaznagar, Adilabad District and the commissioner, Municipal Council, kaghaznagar, Adilabad District, have filed this Writ Appeal being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 20-4-2000 made in Writ Petition no. 20959/99.

( 2 ) THE respondent-saw mill filed the writ petition questioning the legality of the proceedings R. C. No. 9154/98/s4, dated 9-7-1999 issued by the Divisional Forest officer, Kaghaznagar, Adilabad District, the 1st respondent in the writ petition, rejecting the application of the petitioner to shift the saw mill from the existing place to a new location at Survey No. 85/2 of Chintaguda village in Kaghaznagar Mandal, which, admittedly, falls within 5 kilometre-radius of reserve forest boundary. The Divisional forest Officer rejected the application on the ground that if the petitioner was permitted to shift the location of the saw mill to Survey no. 85/2 of Chintaguda village, it would be contrary to the provisions of Rule 3 (2) of a. P. Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 (for short "the Rules" ). Being aggrieved by the said order, the writ petition was filed contending that the Divisional Forest Officer was not justified in applying the bar contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the rules, inasmuch as that sub-rule is applicable only to the setting-up of fresh saw mills and not the existing saw mills. The above contention was found favour with the learned Single Judge. Hence, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order passed by the divisional Forest Officer, Kaghaznagar. Hence, this Writ Appeal by the State authorities.

( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Forest appearing for the appellant contended that the bar contained in sub- rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules applies also to the shifting of existing saw mill and not necessarily setting up of fresh saw mills and in that view of the matter, the order made by the Divisional Forest Officer impugned in the writ petition was in order and in accordance with law. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-saw mill supported the order of the learned Single Judge.

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned Government Pleader for Forests is not acceptable to us. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the rules reads as follows," (2) No licence for setting up fresh saw mills within a distance of 5 Kms. from the boundary of any Forest under the control of the Forest Department whether notified or not shall be granted, except when it is required for departmental use. "sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules reads as follows," (4) In case the saw mill premises is to be changed, or when the machinery is to be shifted from one place to another within same forest division, such changes should not be done without prior approval of licensing authority. "undoubtedly, an existing saw mill could be shifted to another location within the same forest division but only after prior approval of the licensing authority - in the instant case, the Divisional Forest Officer, under rule 5 (4) of the Rules. The bar contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 applies only for setting up fresh saw mills. If the argument of the learned Government Pleader for Forests is accepted that the bar contained in sub- rule (2) of Rule 3 would also apply to the shifting of the existing saw mills, then, we are of the considered opinion that the word "fresh" occurring in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules would be rendered redundant and surplusage. It is well settled principle of construction of statute that no such interpretation can be placed to render any word or expression used in a Statute waste or surplusage. The rule making authority, in its wisdom, with clear intendment has specified that the bar contained in Rule 3 (2) is applicable only to the setting up of fresh saw mills and, therefore, that bar cannot be applied to the shifting of the existing saw mills. In Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg.