SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16729

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. S. Bhanumathi, J
Bundi Sekhar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No.2154 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akula Kishan
For the Respondents: Baliboyina Sravani

Administrative orders impacting property or licensing rights must be supported by cogent reasons and comply with the principles of natural justice by considering all relevant claims and providing an opportunity for a hearing to all affected parties before taking adverse action.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2018 - Rule 11(1) - Cancellation of forest-based industrial licence - Principles of natural justice - Requirement of reasoned orders - Petitioner and his brothers jointly purchased saw-mill licensed in name of one brother - Contention that petitioner is entitled to transfer of licence upon death of licence-holder - Authorities cancelled licence solely on request of licence-holder and his successor without addressing competing claims or detailed representations submitted by petitioner - Impugned order found devoid of reasons - Held, order cancelling licence without responding to petitioner's grounds or providing opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner and his late brother were joint owners of a saw mill business licensed under a specific name. Following disputes between the brothers and the death of the primary licence holder, the licensing authority cancelled the licence based on requests from the deceased licensee and his successor, without considering the petitioner's application for transfer of the licence under the Rules or his submissions regarding the joint nature of the business and property.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the impugned order of cancellation was passed in an arbitrary manner, ignoring the specific legal claims and documents submitted by the petitioner. The failure to assign reasons in response to the petitioner’s explanation and the lack of proper inquiry rendered the order unsustainable in law.

Issues: Whether the licensing authority acted arbitrarily in cancelling the saw mill licence without considering the pending application for transfer and without affording the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative order must be supported by valid reasons and cannot ignore the substantive grounds raised by the affected party; failure to address such grounds or to provide an opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice and renders the administrative decision void.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside with directions for a fresh inquiry.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts involving disputed saw mill licence and cancellation proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contentions regarding arbitrary cancellation and applicability of succession rules. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. requirement of natural justice and reasoned orders in administrative cancellation of licences. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the proceedings of the respondent No.3 in ref.No.2491/2000/F10, dated 08.11.2024, cancelling the licence of the saw mill, issued arbitrarily, without enquiring into the application dated 02.09.2024 of the petitioner for transfer of the licence in his favour and without approval of State Level Committee, and to direct the respondent No.3 to initiate action to transfer the licence to the petitioner as per Rule 11(1) of the A.P. Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2018 (in short, “the Rules”).

2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is as follows:

a. Bundi Sekhar (writ petitioner), late Bundi Selvaraj (respondent No.5) and Bundi Srinivas (respondent No.6), who are brothers, together purchased a saw-mill, by name, Shamsher Wood Planning and Saw Mill on 13.04.2006 along with its licence bearing No.41/99 for Rs.17,73,000/-. It was agreed that the licence of the saw mill would be kept in the name of the respondent No.5 and that the petitioner would be given a rent free accommodation for running a depot, by name Vijayasekhar Timbers, in the premises of the saw mill under the consent letter, dated 30.01.2017, of the respondents Nos.5 & 6.

The premises of the saw mill in Nellore was transferred to the name of the three brothers altering from the name of Yerramsetty Venkata Masthan to the names of three brothers by A.P.I.I.C. on 29.12.2010. Three brothers raised a loan of Rs.65,80,282/- from Union Bank of India, Nellore branch on 17.07.2019. As there was no proper repayment of the loan, the bank issued notice for recovery of possession due to non-payment of Rs.13,87,075/-. The amount was paid by the petitioner to preserve the property. Some disputes arose between the brothers and civil suits were filed. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.863 of 2022 on the file of the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore to prevent the respondents Nos.5 & 6 from evicting the petitioner from the saw mill property. The Court granted temporary injunction. The suit is pending. The respondents Nos.5 & 6 filed O.S.No.138 of 2022 before the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Nellore, seeking partition of the subject property. The suit is pending.

c. The respondents Nos. 5 & 6, colluding with Sri U.Rama Rao Choudary of Madhusudana Timber & Saw Mill, Wood Complex, Vedayapalem, Nellore, tried to forcibly evict the petitioner during March, 2023 and threatened the workers also. The Circle Inspector of Police, Vedayapalem and the Superintendent of Police, Nellore, were informed of the incident on 24.03.2023 with a request to take action against the perpetrators. The consequent action on the complaint is not within the knowledge of the petitioner. The respondent No.5 filed a representation dated 30.03.2024, to the respondent No.3 seeking cancellation of the licence of the saw mill stating a reason that he is unable to run the saw mill due to ill-health since the year 2021 and further alleging that the petitioner has been forging the signatures of the respondent No.5 and getting the renewals done and running the saw mill. Such allegations of the respondent No.5 are without foundation.

d. In response to the complaint, the Forest Range Officer, Nellore Forest Range / respondent No.4 issued a notice to the respondent No.5 and the petitioner vide Rc. No.39/2001, dated 28.05.2024, for the purpose of conducting enquiry. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the allegations of forgery and also stating about the pending civil suits and further reque

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top