JUDGMENT:

(Per Justice Ravi Cheemalapati)

This letter patent Appeal has been preferred by the State feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition No.1077 of 2024 filed by respondent herein was allowed.

2. Appellants herein were respondents and respondent herein was the writ petitioner in the Writ Petition covered by the orders impugned in this Writ Appeal.

3. The grievance of the writ petitioner as set out in the writ affidavit, in nutshell, is that he is the owner of Sri Venkata Ganesh Sawmill located at Butchayyapeta Village and Mandal, Anakapalli and as his application for relocation of the said sawmill was not considered by the authorities on the ground that the proposed location is within 5Kms from the nearest forest boundary, he filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.1888 of 2023 and a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide its order dated 28.08.2023 allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for relocation of the sawmill. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted an application dated 25.10.2023 seeking permission to relocate the sawmill. But the said application was rejected stating that permission for relocation of the subject sawmill cannot be accorded in view of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Wood Based Industries (Establishment & Regulation) Rules, 2018 (for short ‘Rules, 2018), since the proposed site of relocation is within 1.97 Kms from Kandipudi Compensatory Afforestation Area. Assailing the same, the writ petition was filed.

4. The respondents in the writ petition through counter of respondent No.2 justified their action in rejecting the proposal for relocation the sawmill on the ground that permission is sought for inter division transfer from old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, to Butchayyapeta, Anakapalli District and hence the same would amount to establishment of fresh wood based industry and as the proposed site of relocation is within 5Kms from Kandipudi Compensatory Afforestation Land, the said proposal, upon careful examination, has been rejected vide the impugned proceedings. There are no merits in the writ petition warranting interference of this Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The learned Single Judge, upon considering the pleadings as well as submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, allowed the writ petition, holding that the prohibition contained in Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 of Rules, 2018, would only apply to fresh wood based industries but not to relocation/shifting of existing sawmills and moreover without issuing any notification declaring the Kandipudi Compesatory Afforestation land area as reserve forest, the authorities cannot reject the application for relocation on the ground that the proposed location is within 5Kms from the nearest forest boundary. The said orders are assailed by the State in this writ appeal.

6. Heard Sri P.Vishnu Teja, learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellants and Sri N.B.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. Learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants while reiterating the grounds of the appeal submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is contrary to Sub-Rules (2) & (3) of Rule 11 of Rules, 2018, which prohibit even relocation of the wood based industries within 5Kms radius of the forest area. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (for short Act, 1967), empowers the Government to declare any forest or waste land to be a protected forest and upon such declaration the provisions of this chapter shall apply and proviso to the said provision further authorizes the Government to declare the land as protected forest, pending enquiry and record at a survey of settlement and therefore, the orders impugned are unsustainable and are liable to be