IMPORTANT POINT
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.

ORDER:

(V. Sujatha, J.) :

Both these petitions are filed by the same petitioner and the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same. Therefore, I am of the view that it is appropriate to decide both the petitions by common order taking Writ Petition No.32597 of 2013 as leading petition. W.P. No.32597 of 2013 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.2964/2003-P7 dated 10.6.2013 for revoking the saw mill license and consequently confirming the said orders by the 1st respondent in Rc.No.4530/2013/M6 dated 24.10.2013 as arbitrary, illegal and consequently set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 in Rc.No.2964/2003-P7 dated 10.6.2013 and the consequential orders in Rc.No.4530/2013/M6 dated 24.10.2013 passed by the respondent No.1 in the interest of justice...”

3. Mrs. Syed Acramunisa who is the wife of one Mahaboob Basha (late) has filed the present writ petition, in the capacity of legal heir as her husband i.e. Mr. Mahaboob Basha is no more, challenging the action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in issuing the proceedings in Rc.No.4530/2013/M6, dated 24.10.2013 and Rc.No.2964/2003-P7, dated 10.06.2013 respectively.

4. The brief facts of the case are that one S. Abdul Khader has established a saw mill in the name and style of ‘Sri Rama Saw Mill’ in Sy.No.533/1, Shivalayam Street Proddatur town in the year 1977, and has been renewing the saw mill license regularly. In the year 2011, the owner of the subject saw mill has shifted the saw mill to Sy.No.339 Auto Nagar, Proddatur Mandal after obtaining prior approval from the authorities. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the Forest Department personnel used to inspect the premises every month. While so, in the year 2011, the petitioner’s husband has purchased the subject saw mill from one S. Abdul Khader and got renewed the license in his name for the year 2012. While the license period for the year 2012 was about to expire, the petitioner’s husband made an application for renewal of the saw mill license.

5. While the matter being so, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 28.01.2013 alleging that the subject saw mill was shifted to the current location without prior permission from the authorities and sought explanation from the petitioner’s husband as to why the sawmill license should not be cancelled for violating the provisions of the saw mill rules. In the said show cause notice, the petitioner’s husband was directed not to operate the saw mill. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner’s husband filed W.P.No.3637 of 2013 before this Court, wherein the respondents were directed to pass final orders after conducting enquiry and till such time not to interfere with the functioning of the saw mill.

6. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.2964/2003-P7, dated 10.06.2013, revoking the saw mill license of the petitioner’s husband as per Rule 9(1) of the A.P. Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969, which was further confirmed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner’s husband on 24.10.2013. The main contention of the petitioner is that though the earlier location of the saw mill is also situated within 5kms and as there is no prohibition for shifting the saw mill from existing place, which is within 5kms from the reserved forest, to another place which is also within 5kms from the reserved forest, the respondents have revoked the saw mill license of the petitioner’s husband. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the present writ petition is filed.

7. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 25.11.2013, this Court has passed an interim order in W.P.M.P.No.40536 of 2013 by suspending the operation of the proceedings in Rc.No.2964/2003-P7, d