ORDER: (V. Sujatha, J.) : Both these petitions are filed by the same petitioner and the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same. Therefore, I am of the view that it is appropriate to decide both the petitions by common order taking Writ Petition No.32597 of 2013 as leading petition. W.P. No.32597 of 2013 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 to declare the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.2964/2003-P7 dated 10.6.2013 for revoking the saw mill license and consequently confirming the said orders by the 1st respondent in Rc.No.4530/2013/M6 dated 24.10.2013 as arbitrary, illegal and consequently set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 in Rc.No.2964/2003-P7 dated 10.6.2013 and the consequential orders in Rc.No.4530/2013/M6 dated 24.10.2013 passed by the respondent No.1 in the interest of justice...” 3. Mrs. Syed Acramunisa who is the wife of one Mahaboob Basha (late) has filed the present writ petition, in the capacity of legal heir as her husband i.e. Mr. Mahaboob Basha is no more, challenging the action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in issuing the proceedings in Rc.No.4530/2013/M6, dated 24.10.2013 and Rc.No.2964/2003-P7, dated 10.06.2013 respectively. 4. The brief facts of the case are that one S. Abdul Khader has established a saw mill in the name and style of ‘Sri Rama Saw Mill’ in Sy.No.533/1, Shivalayam Street Proddatur town in the year 1977, and has been renewing the saw mill license regularly. In the year 2011, the owner of the subject saw mill has shifted the saw mill to Sy.No.339 Auto Nagar, Proddatur Mandal after obtaining prior approval from the authorities. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the Forest Department personnel used to inspect the premises every month. While so, in the year 2011, the petitioner’s husband has purchased the subject saw mill from one S. Abdul Khader and got renewed the license in his name for the year 2012. While the license period for the year 2012 was about to expire, the petitioner’s husband made an application for renewal of the saw mill license. 5. While so, in the year 2011, the petitioner’s husband has purchased the subject saw mill from one S. Abdul Khader and got renewed the license in his name for the year 2012. While the license period for the year 2012 was about to expire, the petitioner’s husband made an application for renewal of the saw mill license. 5. While the matter being so, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 28.01.2013 alleging that the subject saw mill was shifted to the current location without prior permission from the authorities and sought explanation from the petitioner’s husband as to why the sawmill license should not be cancelled for violating the provisions of the saw mill rules. In the said show cause notice, the petitioner’s husband was directed not to operate the saw mill. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner’s husband filed W.P.No.3637 of 2013 before this Court, wherein the respondents were directed to pass final orders after conducting enquiry and till such time not to interfere with the functioning of the saw mill. 6. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.2964/2003-P7, dated 10.06.2013, revoking the saw mill license of the petitioner’s husband as per Rule 9(1) of the A.P. Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969, which was further confirmed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner’s husband on 24.10.2013. The main contention of the petitioner is that though the earlier location of the saw mill is also situated within 5kms and as there is no prohibition for shifting the saw mill from existing place, which is within 5kms from the reserved forest, to another place which is also within 5kms from the reserved forest, the respondents have revoked the saw mill license of the petitioner’s husband. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the present writ petition is filed. 7. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 25.11.2013, this Court has passed an interim order in W.P.M.P.No.40536 of 2013 by suspending the operation of the proceedings in Rc.No.2964/2003-P7, dated 10.06.2013. As the respondents are interfering with the subject saw mill without following due process of law, in spite of there being interim orders of this Court in the present writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed W.P.No.8008 of 2016, challenging the action of the respondents. 8. As the respondents are interfering with the subject saw mill without following due process of law, in spite of there being interim orders of this Court in the present writ petition, the petitioner herein has filed W.P.No.8008 of 2016, challenging the action of the respondents. 8. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit along with vacate stay petition denying the contentions raised by the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter that as per the inspection report of various forest officers, it was noticed that the owner of the subject saw mill shifted the sawmill unauthorizedly to Auto Nagar, without permission from the department. As such, a show cause notice dated 28.01.2013 was issued to the petitioner’s husband as per the Rules, 1969 and provisions made in G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 11.07.2006, seeking his explanation as to why his saw mill license should not be revoked for shifting of the sawmill unauthorizedly to a new location which is within 5kms from the reserved forest. Thereafter, as per the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.3637 of 2013 filed by the petitioner’s husband, an enquiry was conducted on 16.03.2013, wherein it was concluded that the petitioner’s husband has not sought prior permission from the officials for shifting the saw mill. The ownership of the saw mill was transferred to the petitioner’s husband vide proceedings of the Divisional Forest Officer, dated 25.02.2012. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner’s husband has purchased the saw mill during 2011 while it was running in the present location cannot be accepted. Though the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent against the orders issued by the 2nd respondent dated 10.06.2013, the same was rejected as the petitioner’s husband failed to prove his genuineness with relevant evidential records before the 1st respondent. As there are no merits in the present writ petition, the respondent requested to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Forests. 10. On a perusal of the record, it can be seen that the saw mill which is owned by the petitioner’s husband was originally established in the year 1977 by one S. Abdul Khader in the name and style of ‘Sri Rama Saw Mill’ in Sy.No.533/1, Shivalayam Street Proddatur town. 10. On a perusal of the record, it can be seen that the saw mill which is owned by the petitioner’s husband was originally established in the year 1977 by one S. Abdul Khader in the name and style of ‘Sri Rama Saw Mill’ in Sy.No.533/1, Shivalayam Street Proddatur town. Thereafter, in the year 2011, the petitioner’s husband herein has purchased the subject saw mill and got renewed the license in his favour in the year 2012. When he had approached the respondent authorities for renewal of saw mill license for the upcoming year, he was issued a show cause notice alleging that the saw mill was shifted to Sy.No.339 Auto Nagar, Proddatur Mandal without prior permission and sought explanation. After conducting due enquiry, the petitioner’s husband was issued the impugned proceedings by the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.2964/2003-P7, dated 10.06.2013. The appeal filed by the petitioner’s husband against the proceedings dated 10.06.2013 was also rejected by the 1st respondent vide Rc.No.4530/2013/M6, dated 24.10.2013 on the ground that the petitioner’s husband has shifted the subject saw mill without prior permission of the competent authorities and that the location to which the saw mill was shifted falls within 5kms from the Reserve Forest which is in violation of A.P. Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 and G.O.Ms.No.91 (EFS&T For-III) Dept., dated 11.07.2006. 11. For better appreciation of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to refer to relevant rules of the A.P. saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969, which is extracted hereunder: “3(2) No license for setting up fresh saw mills within a distance of 5 Km. from the boundary of any Forest under the control of the Forest Department whether notified or not shall be granted, except when it is required for Departmental use.” 12. The petitioner’s appeal has been rejected while referring to G.O.Ms.No.91, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (For.III) Department, dated 11.07.2006 and the relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder: “On Relocation:- 1. No relocation shall be allowed into the area prohibited under A.P. Saw Mill rules. It means no saw mill shall be shifted from outside of 5Km radius from the forest area to within 5 Km of forest area. However, shifting will be allowed from within the 5 Km of forest area to outside. 2. Total number of machines used before shifting (for example number of the horizontal saws, Vertical saws. It means no saw mill shall be shifted from outside of 5Km radius from the forest area to within 5 Km of forest area. However, shifting will be allowed from within the 5 Km of forest area to outside. 2. Total number of machines used before shifting (for example number of the horizontal saws, Vertical saws. Peelers, slicer and chipper) shall not be increased. 3. The annual capacity of saw mill or saw mill inside the wood based industry for conversion of timber shall not be increased. 4. The machine type should not be changed from one type to another. For example saw mill having the licence for band saw cannot change to peelers or slicer etc. 5. Multiple licenses should not be given from a single license by splitting the license. For example, if the saw mill is having a license for 2 horizontal saw, it cannot be shifted to another place/ places with 1 horizontal saw each. 6. The shifting of saw mill should take place with the prior permission of the competent authority. For transfer of ownership or for shifting within the Division the DFO having the territorial jurisdiction shall be the competent authority. For transfer or shifting outside the Division and within the Circle the Conservator of Forests having the jurisdiction shall be the competent authority. For transfer or shifting outside the Circle the Prl. Chief Conservator of Forests, A.P. shall be the competent authority.” 13. From the above, it can be understood that an existing saw mill could be shifted to another location within the same forest division only after obtaining prior permission from the competent authorities and the sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the A.P. saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 would apply only for setting up of fresh saw mills but, the same cannot be applied to saw mills which are already in existence. On a perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 11.07.2006, it is very clear that any saw mill which is outside 5kms radius from the forest boundary is prohibited to be shifted to a place inside the 5kms radius, but, at the same time, any existing saw mill which is within the 5kms radius from the forest boundary can be shifted to outside the forest boundary. Similarly, any saw mill, which is in existence within the 5kms radius from the forest boundary, can be shifted to another location, which also is within the 5kms radius from the forest boundary, but, only after obtaining prior approval from the competent authorities. A similar issue was also dealt with by a Hon’ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Sree Venkateswara Saw Mills, 2002(4)ALD 55. 14. In the present case, the subject saw mill was originally established by one S. Abdul Khader in in Sy.No.533/1, Shivalayam Street Proddatur town in the year 1977 which admittedly is within 5kms radius from the nearest forest boundary. Later on, the subject saw mill was shifted to Sy.No.339 Auto Nagar, Proddatur Mandal, which is also within 5kms radius from the nearest forest boundary. The allegation raised by the respondents in the impugned proceedings is that the petitioner’s husband has acted against G.O.Ms.No.91, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (For.III) Department, dated 11.07.2006, as per which no saw mill shall be shifted to a location within 5kms radius from the nearest forest boundary, without prior approval from the competent authorities. However, the subject saw mill herein, was in existence since 1977 which is established within 5kms radius from the forest boundary and has been shifted to another location, which admittedly is also within 5kms radius from the forest boundary, but, the same was shifted to the present location without obtaining prior permission from the forest authorities. On a perusal of the material paper available on record, it can be seen that the respondent authorities have transferred the ownership of the subject saw mill in favour of the petitioner’s husband in the year 2012 after duly considering the location to which the saw mill was shifted. If at all the respondents had an objection that the previous owner of the subject saw mill has shifted the saw mill without obtaining prior permission from the competent authorities, the respondents ought to have objected at the time of transfer of the ownership itself. If at all the respondents had an objection that the previous owner of the subject saw mill has shifted the saw mill without obtaining prior permission from the competent authorities, the respondents ought to have objected at the time of transfer of the ownership itself. Having failed to raise an objection at that moment, thereafter cannot issue a show cause notice to the petitioner’s husband calling for explanation as to why his saw mill license should not be revoked on the ground that the he has shifted the saw mill in violation of G.O.Ms.No.91, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (For.III) Department, dated 11.07.2006. 15. On the other hand, Rule 3(2) of A.P. saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 deals with issuance of license for setting up of fresh saw mills within 5kms radius from the nearest forest boundary, but, the said rule does not apply to the saw mill of the petitioner’s husband as the subject saw mill is not a fresh saw mill as it is in existence since 1977. Hence, the respondents cannot raise an objection that the saw mill license of the petitioner’s husband can be revoked on the ground of violation of A.P. Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 and G.O.Ms.No.91, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (For.III) Department, dated 11.07.2006. Hence the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing proceedings dated 10.06.2013 revoking the saw mill license of the petitioner’s husband herein and consequential orders dated 24.10.2013 passed by the 1st respondent are liable to be set-aside. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the proceedings in Rc.No.2964/2003-P7, dated 10.06.2013 and as well as the consequential orders in Rc.No.4530/2013/M6, dated 24.10.2013. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. In view of the detailed order passed in W.P.No.32597 of 2013, no orders are necessary in the other writ petition i.e. W.P.No.8008 of 2016. Accordingly, W.P.No.8008 of 2016 is closed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.