Veeranjaneya Saw Mill vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos. 19256 and 2339 of 2023 COMMON ORDER; The petitioner in W.P.No.2339 of 2023 has filed the writ petition seeking suspension of the license granted to the 6^*1 respondent therein vide Rc.No.6961/2008A2, dated 08.09.2013 who is the petitioner in W.P.No. 19256 of 2023. As the subject matter in both the writ petitions is of the same saw mill, I am of the view that it is appropriate to decide both the petitions by way of a common order taking Writ Petition No. 19256 of 2023 as leading petition. W.P. No. 19256 of 2023 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing the proceedings vide no RC.No.381 Appeal /2023M4 dated 06.07.2023 in Appeal No.381/2023 conifrming the proceedings of 4'f' respondent i.e. District Forest Officer, Bast Godavari Division, Rajamahendravaram in R.C.No.646/2023P2 dated 09.02.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Section of 35 of the A.P.Forest Act, 1967 and rules made thereunder and as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to renew the Petitioners license without imposing any conditions by setting aside the proceedings issued by the 3'^^ respondent and pass...". The brief facts of the case are that during 2007, the 2. petitioner sold his ancestral property and purchased another property admeasuring an extent of Acs.0.97 cents in R.S.No.4/2 situated at Kalavalapalli village, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District
2 (hereinafter referred ‘Property^ vide settlement deed as dated 27.05.2011. While on 31.12.2013, the petitioner has established a name and style of M/s Sri Vearangjaneya Weight Bridge and M/s Sri Veeranjaneya Saw Mill in the said so, weigh bridge and saw mill in the properly in pursuance of the approval from the forest conversion of the said property from agricultural was issued on 27.07.2011 vide proceedings on 24.09.2011, the Tahsidlar, Chagallu possession certificate in favour of the petitioner. department. The to a non-agricultural purpose of the R.D.O., Kowur and mandal has issued
Subsequently, the petitioner has leased one Sri Kondepati Harinadham on 20.02.2014 for 10 months and executed out the sawmill to a period of 16 years an unregistered deed dated 20.02.2014. But, the Sa- respondent with a fraudulent motive to knock away the said property, has fabricated false documents styling them and instituted as Sale deeds a suit vide bearing O.S.No.275 of 2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovur against the petitioner for eviction from the the 5th respondent on the file of Principal against the petitioner seeking for property and alleged arrears thereof. Thereafter, has also preferred another O.S.No.30/2018 Junior Civil Judge, Nidadavole permanent injunction and the Thereafter, the 4* respondent has same was dismissed on 09.11.2021. renewed petitioner’s license basing upon the documents produced by the petitioner relating to title, in accordance with Rule 10 of A.P. (Establishment and Regulations) Rules, Wood Based Industries 2018 after due enquiry and 3 verification of title deeds and possession certificate submitted by the petitioner. While so, the 5*^ respondent filed W.P.No.2380 of 2022 4. before this Court challenging the orders of license renewal of wood- based industry vide DFO File No.6961/2009/SS for the year valid up to 31.12.2021 issued in favour of the petitioner, which was however dismissed as withdrawn on 14.10.2022. Thereafter, another writ petition was filed by the 5* respondent vide W.P.No.2339 of 2023 challenging the inaction of the respondent No.4 in suspending the impugned license granted to the petitioner, in which, this Court has passed an interim order on 01.02.2023 directing the 4^^ respondent to consider the 5^^ respondent’s representation dated 03.01.2023 and to pass a speaking order within a period of four (4) weeks. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the Forest Range Officer, Rajahmundry on 07.02.2023 had conducted enquiry at the premises, during which, the petitioner has submitted all the title deeds and lease deeds pertaining to the schedule property. But, however, the 1®^ respondent, basing on the report submitted by the Forest Range Officer erred in holding that the petitioner has not produced relevant documents pertaining to the property, though the petitioner has submitted documents at the time of enquiry, refused to renew license issued in favour of the petitioner for the year 2023 which is contrary to Rule 15 of A.P. Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulations) Rules, 2018 and Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967. 4
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the respondent seeking to suspend the order dated 09.02.2023 by renewing petitioner’s license of saw mill for the year 2023. But, the 3'^'^ respondent, despite receiving and acknowledging the appeal, failed to adjudicate the appeal. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the 3rd respondent is obligated to adjudicate the appeal as per the Act and rules made thereunder, the 3rd respondent, without examining the documents and without giving an opportunity of hearing, has passed the impugned proceedings dated 06.07.2023 dismissing the appeal. Hence, the present writ petition. The respondent No.4 has filed a detailed counter stating that the 4* respondent issued impugned orders in Re.No.649/2023- P2, dated 09.02.2023 in which the renewal of license of the petitioner 6. for the year 2023 was rejected as the license holder, who is the petitioner herein has not produced the Title Deed or Lease Deed of the premises of the subject sawmill or an undertaking stating that the premises of the subject sawmill are on lease from the land owner. Aggrieved by the rejection orders of this respondent the petitioner filed appeal before the 3‘''i respondent which was rejected vide Rc.No.381(Appeal)/2023-M4, dated 06.07.2023 holding there are no valid grounds to interfere with the orders of 4^ respondent. The petitioner is mentioning the details of the property and the monetary transaction on the properties which are not relevant to the case. The petitioner has stated the sequence of events in respect of the sawmill property and how it was taken over by 5*^ respondent herein and 5 basing on the documents presented, the sawmill was renewed for the year 2021. During the year 2021-22 the petitioner applied for the Renewal of License with a possession certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Chagallu, dated 27.05.2022, but thereafter, the Tahsildar, Chagallu has issued another letter dt.30.05.2022, stating that his earlier letter dated 27.05.2022 may not be considered as the land was purchased by the 5*^ respondent herein. The 5* respondent filed O.S.No. 275/2017 on the file of 7. Senior Civil Judge, Kovvuru seeking eviction of the petitioner and also claiming arrears of amount due. Subsequently, the 5* respondent also filed O.S.No.30/2018 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nidadavolu for permanent injunction against the petitioner herein. but, however the case was dismissed on 09.11.2021 as the plaintiff (5* respondent herein) was not interested to continue the suit. Thereafter, the 5^^ respondent herein filed W.P.No.2380/2022 challenging the renewal of license of the petitioner with validity upto 31.12.2021 which was dismissed as infructuous. Thereafter the 5^^ respondent filed W.P.No.2339 of 2023 seeking directions to the 4^^ respondent herein and Forest Range Officer, Rajahmundiy to take action to suspend the license granted to the petitioner herein situated in 5* respondent's property, which was granted on misrepresentation of title. In the said writ petition, this Court vide order dated 01.02.2023 in LA.No.01 of 2023 has directed the respondents to consider the representation of the 5^^ respondent herein and pass a speaking order. Accordingly, the 4^ respondent passed speaking
6 orders in Rc.No.646/2023-P2, dt.09.02.2023 refusing to renew lieense for the year 2023 as the license holder (B. Tata Rao) has not submitted the required documents. This Court in interim orders dt.27.07.2023 in I.A.No.Ol of 2023 in W.P.No.2339 of 2023 filed by the 5^11 respondent, passed the interim order appointing the Advocate Commissioner to verify the status of running of the sawmill of the petitioner herein. The report dated 23.08.2023 of the Advocate Commissioner has been submitted before this Court on 28.08.2023 stating that the subject Saw Mill is not running as on the date i.e., 19.08.2023.
The appeal of the petitioner herein was examined by the 3’'<i respondent and petitioner herein also submitted his statement to 8. the Appellate Authority wherein it was mentioned that the land where the subject sawmill existing is located in Sy.No.4/2 (Ac.0.50 cents), Kalavapally Village, Chagallu Mandal belongs to the petitioner herein which was obtained through gift deed by his wife on 25.07.2011. It was also stated that the sawmill license of the petitioner was renewed from the year 2013 to 2022 as per the said document mentioned above. The respondent referred to the letter of Tahsildar, Chagallu dt.30.05.2022, stating that his earlier letter dt.27.05.2022 possession of the land may be ignored in view of the application made by the 5* respondent herein and in view of the land dispute in O.S.No.275/2017 before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kovvuru. The respondent rejected the appeal as there are no valid grounds to interfere with the orders of the 4*^ respondent vide Rc.No.381 (Appeal)/ on 7 2023-M4, dt.06.07.2023. The impugned orders issued by 4^^ respondent dt.09.02.2023 and the orders issued in appeal by the 3''‘i respondent in his reference dt.06.07.2023 are proper and due to the land dispute which is pending in Civil Court, the renewal of Sawmill license cannot be considered. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Government Pleader for Forests and Sri M. Devi Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.
A perusal of the Andhra Pradesh Wood Based Industries
(Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2018 (for short 'the Rules') discloses that they are comprehensive enough to deal with the issue raised in the Writ Petitions. For better understanding of the case, the relevant rules of the above said Rules are extracted hereunder: “2(c) 'Licensing Authority' means the Divisional Forest Officer having juri iction over the place of establishment of wood based industry.
No wood based industry without licence. - (1) No person shall install, erect or operate a Wood Based Industry for cutting, converting or sawing of limber without obtaining a licence for such installation from the Licensing Authority. (2) No Licence for setting up fresh wood based industry within a distance of 5 KMs., from the boundary of any forest under control of Forest Department whether notified or not shall be granted except when it is required for Departmental use. (3) The distance of 5 KMs., shall be computed from topo sheets as of Survey of India as aerial distance as crow flies.
8 (4) The distance restriction above will not he applicable i in an industrial Estate or a Municipal area.
Application for Licence. ~ as mentioned in sub-rule (2) to a wood based industry' established (1) Any person desiring to install based industry shall make of the following documents: or erect or operate a wood an application in Form-I enclosing copies (a) Tide deeds or lease deed of the premises or that the premises of wood based an undertaking by the applicant industry are on lease from the land owner. (b) Copy of Factory Licence, if any, (c) Copy of GST Registration (d) Copy of Pan Card (e) Copy ofAadhar Card of applicant (f) Copy of location sketch of the premises (g) statement .ndicating the sources of supply of round wood, species and quantity
Conditions of Licence, Renewal, m The Licensee should submit renewal application within three months prior to the eepiry of existing Licence. Transfer etc. - (2) If no renewal application i Authority upto 31st December, IS submitted to the Licensing late fee of Rs.2000/- shall be levied upto February succeeding year, irrespective of duration of delay ,f renewal appl,cation is not submitted before the end of February i, Will be deemed that the licence has lapsed and the wood based industry owner should apply for fresh T available with the Licensing Authority shall licence. The security deposit ' stand forfeited. (3) When renewal application iIS made, the Licence holder of abstract of timber should enclose proof of submission and if the accounts accounts, shall not furnished, the renewal application not be considered by the Licensing Authority. are 9 (4) When renewal application is submitted to the Licensing Authority and till renewed Licence is received, the acknowledgement given by the Licensing Authority shall be treated as Licence by inspecting officers (5) The licensing authority shall renew the licence after the receipt of permission/ authorization for renewal from the State Level Committee. ”
As per the above rules any person who desires for the renewal of licence is governed by the AP Wood based Industries (Establishment and Regulations)Rules, 2018 and the procedure
therefore is also the same for grant of licence, except the fact that an existing licence holder is entitled to seek renewal of the licence three months prior to the expiry thereof. The procedure for cancellation/revocation of licence is also comprehensively dealt with in the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondent authorities submit that the petitioner submitted possession certificate at the time of renewal. It may be noted that the petitioner, who is the licence holder, also requires to obtain licence in terms of Rule 4(3) of the Rules. For the sake of clarity. Rule 4(3) of the Rules may be noted hereunder: "Every Proprietor of an existing wood based Industry shall obtain a licence from the Licensing Authority within sixty days from the date of publication of these rules and any existing wood based Industry should not be operated beyond sixty days from the date ofpublication of these rules without a valid licence under these rules." As per the aforesaid Rule, existing licence holder is 12. required to obtain licence from the Licensing Authority within 60 days
10 from the date of publication of the Rules and is prohibited from operating the existing wood based industry beyond 60 days. By this implication, it is for the Licensing Authority to process and grant licence within the stipulated period of 60 days. The petitioner has complied with the guidelines under the said act. The Tahsildhar has erred in issuing possession certificate in favour of Sri Pattapagalu Venkata Rao-respondent No.5, when the claim put-forth by said Respondent 5 is stated to be involved in certain inter se dispute among themselves i.e. respondent No.5 and the petitioner herein, in respect of the transaction said to have been entered between the petitioner and respondent No.5 with regard to sale deed 6573/2012 dt.8-10-2012 vide OS 275/2017 wherein an unregistered lease is also entered into between the parties. Therefore, in that circumstance, at this juncture, though this Court need not advert to the right as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to license, in any event until the rights between the parties is decided in O.S.No.275/2017, the status quo as it existed will have to continue. Hence, the saw mill license will also have to remain in force subject to the renewal to be made in accordance with law, as and when the license the suit in expires. The petitioner has been running sawmill in accordance with rules and the authority has committed not considering the appeal filed by the petitioner depriving him of his right to livelihood. The authority has no ground to refuse the renewal of the license of the existing sawmill. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be allowed. an error in 11
Accordingly, W.P.No. 19256 of 2023 filed for renewal of sawmill license is allowed as the petitioner has been running sawmill in accordance with rules and the authority has committed not considering the appeal filed by the petitioner depriving him of his right to livelihood. The authority has no ground to refuse the renewal of the license of the existing sawmill. Consequently, W.P.No.2339 of 2023 seeking suspension of saw mill license issued in favour of 6^^^ respondent is dismissed. an error in 14. Accordingly, W.P.No. 19256 of 2023 is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the 3^^ respondent dated 06.07.2023 and further the Respondent Nos.2and 3 are directed to renew the license as and when an application is filed by the petitioner seeking renewal, subject to compliance of legal requirements in that regard.
Hence, W.P.No. 19256 of 2023 is allowed and W.P.No.2339 of 2023 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR cA //// SECTION OFFICER
The Principal Secretary, Forest Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, K.M. Munshi Road, Nagararripalem, Guntur, Guntur District.
The Chief Forest Officer, Rajamahendrvaram Circle, Rajamahendrvaram East Godavari District.
The District Forest Officer, Eluru Forest Division, Eluru West Godavari District.
The Forest Range Officer, Rajamahendravaram Range, Opp. Forest Academy, Lala Cheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, A.P.
One CC to Sri Devi Prasad Mangalapuri, Advocate [OPUC]
Two CCs to GP for Forests, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
One CC to Sri Almas Mohammed, Advocate (OPUC)
Three C.D. Copies. Cnr To,
i HIGH COURT DATED:12/01/2024 COMMON ORDER WP. No.19256 and 2339 of 2023 C" '■ i/O Q 5 202H rr;; c/- •vt Current Section 7C ISCCf^C^ ALLOWING THE W.Ps WITHOUT COSTS
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.