COMMON JUDGMENT

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant.

Also heard Ms. V. Sujatha, learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondents.

2. W.A.No.365 of 2021 is preferred against the common judgment and order dated 23.04.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.5482 of 2019 and W.P.No.28856 of 2014, insofar as it relates to W.P.No.5482 of 2019, while W.A.No.366 of 2021 arises out of the same common judgment and order dated 23.04.2021, insofar as it relates to W.P.No.28856 of 2014.

3. Since the issue involved in both the writ appeals and the parties are one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The writ petitioner, who is the appellant in both the writ appeals, is the proprietor of M/s Sri Lakshmi Saw Mill, situated at Kaligiri Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. He filed W.P.No.28856 of 2014 stating that he had purchased the saw mill along with the site and machinery from Smt. V. Kanakamma, who sold the same due to her ill-health and financial problems, and thereafter, he made an application to respondent No.3, viz., Divisional Forest Officer, Nellore, for changing ownership and also for shifting the saw mill to the existing place in Sy.No.631/2-1 of Kaligiri village, by enclosing all relevant documents. Based on the recommendations made by respondent No.2 after inspecting the site and saw mill, respondent No.3 granted permission for change of ownership and for shifting the saw mill to a place in Sy.No.631/2-1 of Kaligiri village, vide proceedings dated 22.10.2011. The licence was renewed by respondent No.3 for 2012 by proceedings dated 06.11.2012 and on 30.11.2013, the petitioner made an application to respondent No.3 by enclosing all the requisite certificates and paying requisite fee for renewal of licence for the period 2014 as per sub- clause(2) of Rule No.4 of A.P. Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1969’).

5. It is further stated that respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 20.01.2014 stating that the competent authority vide Rc.No.4981/2000/F9 dated 07.11.2011 cancelled the permission granted to the petitioner and that the saw mill is within 5 K.M. radial distance of Reserved Forest, which is against the Rules of 1969 and therefore, the petitioner was requested to vacate the present place of saw mill and to apply for shifting to a place which is beyond 5 K.M. radial distance from any Reserved Forest. It is asserted that bar of setting up of a saw mill within 5 K.M. of Reserved Forest boundary under the Rules of 1969 applies only to new saw mills and not to the existing saw mills. It is pleaded that respondent No.2 also issued similar notices on 07.03.2014, 11.04.2014 and 17.06.2014 requesting the petitioner to vacate the present place of saw mill. It is also pleaded that cancellation order dated 07.11.2011 was not served upon the petitioner and that without issuing any notice, as required under Rule 9 of the Rules of

1969, the order of cancellation was passed.

6. Challenging the notices dated 20.01.2014, 07.03.2014, 11.04.2014 and 17.06.2014, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28856 of 2014 along with a prayer to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to run the saw mill by accepting the renewal fees.

7. On 07.10.2014, this Court passed an interim order in W.P.No.28856 of 2014, restraining the respondents from taking any action in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 17.06.2014 of respondent No.2, pending further orders.

8. While matter rested thus, the petitioner filed another writ petition being W.P.No.5482 of 2019 questioning the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in interfering with the running of the petitioner’s saw mill. It is stated in the affidavit that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 07.10.2014 in W.P.No.28856 of 2014, though no interference with the running of the saw mill was caused till March, 2019, on 31.03.2019, all of a su