ORDER:

The challenge in this writ petition is to the proceedings in R.C.No.4967/2009/S3, dated 11.07.2013, issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Vizianagaram – 3rd respondent. In the impugned proceedings it was observed that the petitioner established the wood based industry in violation of Hon’ble Supreme Court order. Hence, the wood based industry operated by the petitioner shall be stopped immediately, otherwise, the further action will be taken.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner is carrying out the activities of processing and making of block boards and plywood by using the raw materials such as face veneers, core veneers and resin. In the petitioner’s industry the process of work involved the job of trimming of veneers and pasting by resin and arranging the same into required thickness and such process of making products involves only veneers acquired by them from the licensed dealers both within and outside the state. No plywood is being manufactured in the petitioner industry and therefore, there is no violation of Hon’ble Apex Court’s order.

3. In W.P. M.P. No.26620 of 2013, this Court passed the following interim order:

“In the light of the averments made by the petitioner industry

in the additional affidavit that it does not undertake manufacture of plywood and that its work involves processing and trimming of

Veneer and pasting the same upon plywood, this Court is of the opinion that the orders passed by the Supreme Court in W.P. No.202 of 1995 (T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India) would have no application to it. There is no explanation forthcoming from the Forest Department as to how the said order has been extended to cover all wood based industries when the order specifically speaks of Sawmills, Plywood and Veneer industries. There shall accordingly be interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated 11.07.2013.”

4. Subsequently, the respondents filed counters and the matter is coming up for hearing. While so, it is brought to notice of this Court by the learned counsel for petitioner that in terms of Rule 8 of G.O.Ms.No.48, Environment Forests Science & Technology (Section – II) Department, dated 08.05.2018, the petitioner’s industry does not require license as his Krishna Plywood Industries falls within the parameters fixed in the said Rule and therefore, in terms of the said G.O., which was issued subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. He, thus, prayed to allow the writ petition.

5. Learned Government Pleader on perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 08.05.2018 and after getting instructions, while agreeing that in view of the subsequent issuance of G.O.Ms.No.48, the impugned proceedings can be set aside, however, would argue that the right of the respondent authorities to inspect the petitioner’s industry periodically to check whether the petitioner’s industry is satisfying the parameters fixed in Rule 8 of the aforesaid G.O. or not may be preserved.

6. In view of the above respective submissions of both the counsel, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings in R.C.No.4967/2009/S3, dated 11.07.2013, issued by the 3rd respondent. It is made clear that so long as the petitioner industry complies with the parameters fixed in Rule 8 of G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 08.05.2018, the petitioner can run its industry without the necessity of obtaining license from the Forest Department. It is further made clear that the respondent authorities right to inspect the petitioner’s industry periodically to check whether the petitioner’s industry satisfies the parameters fixed in Rule 8 of G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 08.05.2018 or not and to take necessary action in case of violation is preserved. No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

23.12.2021 SS