Mohammed Khadeer Baig vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to appear before the 4th respondent on November 10, 2026, to pursue his remedy concerning the pending representation. The 4th respondent was directed to conduct an enquiry into the representation, afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs was made. The Court did not decide the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the illegality of the inaction or the necessity of forest transit permits, as the matter was resolved by directing the authority to consider the pending representation.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammed Khadeer Baig, proprietor of M/s. Maddur Babanna Bamboo Works, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents, particularly the Forest Section Officer, Chelama Range, to grant permission to prepare and transport bamboo and bamboo chandrikalu under valid GST/e-way bill documents. The petitioner contended that the inaction of the 4th respondent in granting this permission was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to a previous court order in W.P.No.35932 of 2025 and the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (as amended). The petitioner sought to transport the goods without insisting on a forest transit permit or any other permission from the Forest Department. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader for Forest, submitted that the petitioner's representation was pending and that they intended to issue a notice for an enquiry, but the petitioner could not be served.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the 4th Respondent in granting permission to the Petitioner to prepare and transport Bamboo and Bamboo Chandrikalu under valid GST/e-way bill documents is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, discriminatory, and contrary to the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.35932 of 2025 and the Central Amendment Act 5 of 2018 to the Indian Forest Act, 1927? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Forest Department's inaction was illegal and arbitrary, violating previous court orders and statutory amendments. They sought permission to transport goods using GST and e-way bills without requiring forest transit permits. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State submitted that the petitioner's representation was pending consideration. They also stated their intention to conduct an enquiry but faced difficulties in serving notice to the petitioner.