An administrative or quasi-judicial order cancelling a licence must be a 'speaking order' that explicitly addresses and provides reasons for rejecting the grounds raised by the affected party; failure to do so violates the principles of natural justice rendering the order unsustainable.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the proceeding bearing No. 2941/2010-A2 dated 20.01.2014 issued by the respondent No.4 cancelling the licence bearing No. 42J/2011 of the petitioner saw mill located in premises situated in R. S. No. 370/1 of Jangareddygudem as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the said proceeding.

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

a. Sri H.Mallacharyulu, originally obtained licence in the year 1992 for running a saw mill in the name and style of M/s. Sri Rama Krishna Saw Mill at Ramachandrapuram Village, Ungutur Mandal, West Godavari District. It was sold to Sri Dasam Veerabadrudu of Pydiparru Village, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District. Later, the petitioner herein / Smt. V. Saibala Padma, w/o. Venkata Rao, present proprietrix of the said saw mill, purchased the saw mill from Dasam Veerabadrudu in the year 2011 “as is where is basis” along with existing machinery of 40 H.P., including peeling machinery of 10 H.P. She approached the concerned authorities for transfer of licence in her name as per the rules.

b. Accepting her request, the licence was renewed in her name as per the proceeding vide Rc. No. 2941/2010-A1, dated 26.05.2011. Later, as it was not renewed for the year 2011 despite paying necessary renewal charges vide challan No. 9926 dated 06.11.2012, she filed a writ petition vide W.P. No. 9385 of 2012 before the common High Court for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The High Court granted interim order dated 10.04.2012 vide W.P.M.P. No. 11865 of 2012 directing the respondents not to interfere with the business activities of the petitioner in the saw mill for the production of renewed licence till it is received by the petitioner pending disposal of the said writ petition. Without implementing the interim order, the respondent No. 4 issued another proceeding vide Rc. No. 2941/2010-A2, dated 18.07.2012 and Rc. No. 17/2011-A2, dated 18.07.2012 refusing to renew the licence for peeling machinery. Assailing the correctness of the proceedings, another writ petition W.P. No. 31683 of 2012 was filed before the common High Court for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Another interim order was passed on 10.10.2012 suspending the impugned order in Rc. No. 17/2011-A2, dated 18.07.2012.

c. Pending these two writ petitions, the respondent No. 4 issued proceeding vide Rc. No. 17/2011-A2, dated 01.11.2012 withdrawing the earlier proceeding challenged in W.P. No. 31683 of 2012. Therefore, the writ petition in W.P. No. 31683 of 2012 was disposed of on 20.12.2012, leaving it open to the respondents to take steps in accordance with law, if any enquiry is pending.

d. Since there was no enquiry pending as on 20.12.2012, the respondent No. 4 has no jurisdiction, but issued proceeding vide Rc. No. 2224/2010-A2, (sic Rc. No. 2941/2010-A2) dated 10.01.2013 (sic 25.01.2013). Assailing the said order, W.P. No. 3336 of 2013 was filed. An interim order was granted on 05.02.2013 vide W. P. M. P. No. 4139 of 2013 suspending the proceeding dated 25.01.2013 pending disposal of the writ petition.

e. Despite the order, another proceeding was passed by the respondent No. 4 vide Rc. No. 2941/20-A2, dated 25.04.2013, assailing which another writ petition W.P. No. 14184 of 2013 was filed. This Court granted an interim order dated 09.05.2013 in W.P.M.P. No. 17304 of 2013 directing the respondent No. 4 / Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru Division, West Godavari District not to interfere and insist closure of the petitioner saw mill’s activities pursuant to the proceeding dated 25.04.2013 impugned in the said writ petition.

f. Since the saw mill was in existence even before the cut-off date, 30.10.2002 as per the order of the Supreme Court in W.P. No. 202 of 1995, the decision of the Supreme Court does not apply to the saw mi