A saw mill license cannot be renewed if there is no saw mill existing and functioning in the name of the applicant.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the non-renewal of saw-mill licence to the premises bearing D.No.6-231 situated at Chilakaluripet, Guntur District in the name of Sri Chaithanya Saw Mill, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The case of the petitioner is that his father namely Sri Pothuri Venkata Koteswara Rao established a saw-mill in the premises bearing D.No.6-129 (old) and 6-231 (new) situated at Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. His father had run the said saw- mill successfully during his lifetime with absolute rights and on his demise, the said saw-mill devolved upon the petitioner by way of partition deed in the year 1972 and thereby he became a lawful owner of the said saw-mill. During the period from 1983 to 1986, the saw-mill was leased out to one Potru Nageswara Rao and as the said Nageswara Rao had not vacated the saw-mill on repeated demands, he filed O.S.No.104 of 1990 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet seeking for his eviction. The said suit was decreed directing the defendant therein namely Potru Nageswara Rao to vacate the schedule premises within a period of two months and deliver the possession of the same to the petitioner/plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the said Potru Nageswara Rao preferred A.S.No.67 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District and it appears that the same was dismissed on 30/11/2000. Then, the said Potru Nageswara Rao preferred Second Appeal No.54 of 2001 and this Court dismissed the same at the stage of admission by judgment dtd. 16/11/2001. Against which, he filed SLP (Civil) No.22299 of 2001 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed. Then, the petitioner filed E.P.No.94 of 2001 for execution of the decree and the said Potru Nageswara Rao filed E.A.No.494 of 2001 under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC to enquire into the matter of obstruction with regard to the existing super structures. The trial Court rejected the said E.A. by order dtd. 2/1/2002. Then, the said Potru Nageswara Rao filed A.S.No.9 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet and the same was allowed on 17/6/2002. Hence, the petitioner preferred C.M.S.A.No.11 of 2002, wherein this Court by order dtd. 3/9/2004 [reported in 2004(6) ALT 525] allowed the same with costs throughout by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.9 of 2002 and upholding the dismissal of E.A.No.494 of 2001 passed by the Executing Court. Hence, the possession of the schedule property was delivered to the petitioner on 16/9/2004 and in turn he took the possession and enjoyment of the saw-mill by paying electricity bills vide Service Connection No. 02101004381 in the name of 'Sri Chaithanya Saw Mill'. At this juncture, he found that the said Potru Nageswara Rao obtained the licence in the name of 'Potru Nageswara Rao Saw Mill' in the said premises, without his consent or knowledge. The said licence was issued wrongfully by the respondents without any verification. He also made an application to the respondent authorities for change of licence in the name of 'Sri Chaithanya Saw Mill' by paying Rs.500.00 by way of challan and obtained Licence No.27 in D.No.6-231 situated in his premises at Chilakaluripet. The licence is continuing in the name of 'Ganesh Saw Mill' for want of name change and for the renewal, for which the petitioner made several representations to the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities issued notice to him by letter dtd. 1/2/1982 vide Ref.No.Rc.No.67/79/F for payment of arrears of saw mill licence fee from 1969-79. He remitted an amount of Rs.882.00 to the Forest Division, Guntur and he was given receipt in the name of 'Ganesh Saw Mill'. Subsequently, the name of 'Ganesh Saw Mill' was changed to 'Sri Chaithanya Saw Mill' and the same was intimated to the Forest Department to treat the Ganesh Saw Mill as Sri Chaithanya Saw Mill and requested for renewal of the same. He sub