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 shifting of existing saw mills.

ORDER :

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“... to issue a writ or order, orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to issuance of the impugned proceedings Rc.No.1450/2013/M5 dated 03.08.2013 form the file of the 3rd Respondent and after perusing the same, quash and said proceedings dated 03.08.2013 and as well as the cancellation order Rc.No.109/2004/NP3 dated 15.05.2013 of the 4th Respondent and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 not to interfere with my running the Saw Mill and with all other consequential benefits …”

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

3. Petitioner’s saw mill was established in April, 1998 and the licence was granted on 27.11.1998 for a period of one year. The said licence was renewed thereafter vide licence No.19 of 2010, dated 30.03.2010 for a period of three years and ‘the petitioner’s saw mill had been continued accordingly. While so, Respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.99, EFS&T (For-III) Department, dated 17.07.1998 which was came into effect on 03.08.1998. As per the said G.O., no person shall install, erect or operate a Saw Mill for cutting, converting or sawing of timber without obtaining a licence for such installation from the Licensing Authority. It is further contemplates that no licence for setting up fresh saw mills within a distance of 5.00 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. Pursuant to the issuance of the said G.O., the Respondents issued show cause notice dated 27.04.2013 indicating that the petitioner’s saw mill was fell within the radius distance of 5.00 kms from the notified Reserved Forest Boundary, for which the petitioner submitted an explanation on 09.05.2013 stating that 5.00 kms stipulation under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 17.07.1998 is not applicable to the existing saw mills, since the petitioner saw mill is an existing one and requested to drop any proposed action under show cause notice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s saw mill was established in April, 1998 and licence was granted on 27.11.1998. But, without application of mind and contrary to its own exceptions the Respondents issued licence cancellation order, vide Rc.No.109/2004/NP3, dated 15.05.2013. Having aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal before Respondent No.3 on 27.05.2013 and also filed stay application on 01.06.2013. To the surprise of the petitioner, the appellate authority i.e. Respondent No.3 rejected the appeal of the petitioner, vide its Rc.No.1450/2013/M5, dated 11.06.2013, without giving any notice and any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and mechanically confirmed the cancellation order of the original authority. He further submits that challenging the order in appeal dated 11.06.2013, the petitioner preferred a W.P.No.17687 of 2013, wherein this Court was pleased to pass an order directing the appellate authority as under:

“The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority for consideration of the appeal afresh shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, be it in the appeal or on the stay application filed therein, expeditiously and in any event, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. W.P.M.P.No.21511 of 2013 shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant to the orders of this Court, on 01.08.2013, the petitioner again submitted a detailed appeal to Respondent No.3. He further submits that without complying the orders of this Court as directed and without application of mind, the appellate a