Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, K. MANMADHA RAO, JJ.
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Petitioners
Versus
B.M. Chanakya Raju – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 41485 of 2017
Decided On : 25-07-2023
Saw Mills - Environmental Protection - Andhra Pradesh Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules 1969, G.O.Ms.No. 91, dated 11.07.2006 - The court considered the application of Rule 3(2) of the Saw Mills Rules and G.O.Ms.No. 91, dated 11.07.2006 in the case of shifting of existing saw mills within 5 kilometers of the nearest reserve forest boundary. The court held that Rule 3(2) applies only to setting up fresh saw mills and not to the relocation of existing saw mills. The G.O.Ms.No. 91 prohibits shifting of saw mills from outside 5 kms radius to within the forest area, but does not bar relocation of existing saw mills within the same radius. The court emphasized the constitutional mandate for environmental protection and the duty of citizens to protect nature. The charge memo was quashed and the petitioners were directed to serve a fresh charge memo, framing the charge with complete particulars of the alleged violations of G.O.Ms.No. 91, and to proceed with the proceedings within six months.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Divisional Forest Officer, recommended the shifting of 4 saw mills within 5 kilometers of the nearest reserve forest boundary. The petitioners alleged that the relocation was within 5 kilometers, contrary to Rule 3(2) of the Saw Mills Rules and G.O.Ms.No. 91, dated 11.07.2006. The Tribunal allowed the respondent's Original Application, setting aside the charge memo and further proceedings. The petitioners challenged the Tribunal's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the Tribunal's decision and directed the petitioners to serve a fresh charge memo, framing the charge with complete particulars of the alleged violations of G.O.Ms.No. 91, and to proceed with the proceedings within six months. The court emphasized the constitutional mandate for environmental protection and the duty of citizens to protect nature.
Issues: The issues revolved around the application of Rule 3(2) of the Saw Mills Rules and G.O.Ms.No. 91, dated 11.07.2006 in the case of shifting of existing saw mills within 5 kilometers of the nearest reserve forest boundary, and the Tribunal's decision to set aside the charge memo and further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Rule 3(2) applies only to setting up fresh saw mills and not to the relocation of existing saw mills. The G.O.Ms.No. 91 prohibits shifting of saw mills from outside 5 kms radius to within the forest area, but does not bar relocation of existing saw mills within the same radius. The court emphasized the constitutional mandate for environmental protection and the duty of citizens to protect nature.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Tribunal's decision and directed the petitioners to serve a fresh charge memo, framing the charge with complete particulars of the alleged violations of G.O.Ms.No. 91, and to proceed with the proceedings within six months.
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
1. Heard Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned Government Pleader, Services-I, for the petitioners and Sri G. Venkata Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (in short “Tribunal”) in O.A.No. 3069 of 2016.
3. By order impugned, the Original Application filed by the present respondent was allowed and the Charge Memo dated 10.07.2013, consequential letter No. 600/2012-M3, dated 14.05.2014 and the final notice issued by the 2nd respondent therein in Ref.No. 6166/2016/A&DC-I, dated 13.06.2016, issued by respondents No. 2, 3 & 2 respectively in the O.A (the present petitioners) have been set aside.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case as per the writ petition are that, the respondent-B.M.Chanakya Raju was working as Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) in Nellore District. While he was working as Forest Range Officer (FRO) in Kurnool District, as part of his duties he recommended for shifting of 4 saw mills within 5 kilometers radius of the nearest reserve forest boundary. On his recommendation, those 4 saw mills were ordered to be shifted from one location to another, but it was later on found that relocation was within 5 kilometers from the nearest reserve forest area.
5. It is their case that as per the report submitted by the Conservator of Forests, Kurnool vide Office Rc.No. 600/2012/M6, dated 17.02.2012 the Saw Mill owners of the 4 saw mills, viz. (1) M/s.Srinivasa Saw Mill, Kurnool, (2) M/s.Abdul Razak & Son’s Saw Mill, Kurnool, (3) M/s.Madina Saw Mill, Kurnool, and (4) M/s.Bharathi Saw Mill, Kurnool, submitted applications for shifting of saw mills which were forwarded to the Forest Range Officer, Kurnool for inspection. The Forest Range Officer submitted the inspection reports to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool, making recommendations for shifting of 4 saw mills to new locations, reporting that the distance of the new locations was outside 5 kms of the reserved forest, i.e. 5.1 km, 7.5 km, 5.48 km and 5.6 kms respectively. On such recommendations made to the Divisional Forest Officer, the saw mills were shifted to the new locations. Later on, as per the Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool inspection and readings recorded and maps generated, the distances were found to be 4.6 km, 3.21 km, 3.31 km and 4.00 km respectively, which fell within the distance of 5.00 kms from the reserved forest boundary.
6. Considering that such shifting within 5 km of the reserve forest boundary was contrary to Rule 3 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 (in short “Saw Mills Rules”) and G.O.Ms.No. 91, Environment Forests Science & Technology (FOR.III) Department, dated 11.07.2006, the charge memo dated 10.07.2013 was issued to the respondent after he was promoted to the post of Divisional Forest Officer.
7. The following is the article of charge:
8. The charged officer submitted written statement of defence, dated 05.11.2013 to the charge memo. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), A.P. Hyderabad being Disciplinary Authority, decided to hold enquiry. The Conservator of Forests, Kurnool was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool as Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry with the charged Officer on 10.10.2014 and 23.04.2014 and submitted a report of findings to the Disciplinary Authority vide Rc.No. 600/2012/M3, dated 14.05.2014.
9. The Enquiry Officer recorded the findings on the charge as under:
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule 3(2) of the Saw Mills Rules and G.O.Ms.No. 91, dated 11.07.2006 in the case of shifting of existing saw mills within 5 kilo....
Existing saw mills can be relocated within 5kms of a forest if prior permission is obtained; revocation of licenses must adhere to established legal frameworks.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the restrictions under G.O.Ms.No.99 were not applicable retrospectively and that the bar on setting up fresh saw mills did not apply to the sh....
The operation of illegal saw mills violates the Forest Conservation Act, necessitating immediate cessation and regulatory compliance to prevent ecological damage.
Administrative discretion must align with principles of fairness and legality; untraceable offences cannot bar rehabilitation eligibility for operational saw mills under applicable regulations.
Unlicensed saw mills in forest areas violate Forest Conservation Act; states must close them, per Supreme Court directives.
The court ruled that the concept of 'deemed forest', although undefined in state law, is valid under national legislation, necessitating proper legal scrutiny and just consideration of applications r....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
