Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 18 (AP)

Kanaka Durga Saw Mill v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2026-01-05

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2026
JUDGMENT : B.S. BHANUMATHI, J. 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring action of the respondent No.3 and his officials in threatening the petitioner to shift the existing petitioner saw mill to 5 kilometres away from the reserved forest area without issuing any notice, illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India besides being contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2018 (in short, the ‘Rules, 2018’) and consequently direct the respondent No.3 not to threaten the petitioner to shift the saw mill. 2. The petitioner is a licenced saw mill. Originally established in the year 1982. Since then, the petitioner has been running the business and getting the licence renewed from time to time on payment of renewal fee, upto the year, 2025. As per Rule 6 (4) of the A.P. Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 (in short the ‘Rules, 1969’) in the event of making application for renewal of licence, acknowledgment given to that effect shall be treated as licence. Though, the petitioner submitted applications, along with requisite amount of fee paid through challans, the authorities are not issuing the renewal licence, except on some occasions, but it is being treated as the licence of the petitioner renewed in view of the above said legal position. Subsequently, the Rules, 1969 have been superseded by the rules called “The Andhra Pradesh Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2018” published through G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 08.05.2018. As per Rule 4 (3) of the Rules, 2018, every proprietor of the existing wood based industry shall obtain a licence from the licencing 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 of publication of these rules without a valid licence under these rules. Rule 4 (4) of the Rules, 2018 deals with payment of fee. As per Rule 4(8) of the Rules, 2018, on receipt of an application, the licencing authority shall grant a licence / renewal in Form-II of these rules after obtaining prior approval of State Level Committee. Rule 4 (4) of the Rules, 2018 deals with payment of fee. As per Rule 4(8) of the Rules, 2018, on receipt of an application, the licencing authority shall grant a licence / renewal in Form-II of these rules after obtaining prior approval of State Level Committee. In view of the Rules, 2018, the petitioner submitted an application, along with challan dated 25.06.2018 showing deposit of prescribed fee for grant of licence, under the Rules, 2018. Further, the petitioner deposited renewal fee along with a covering letter on 14.11.2018. Even thereafter, the petitioner has paid the renewal licence fee upto 2025. From the last week of October, 2025, the officials of the respondent No.3 have been insisting the petitioner to shift the saw mill to any place 5 kilometres away from the reserved forest area, though the petitioner brought to the notice of the authorities that the subject saw mill was established much prior to the commencement of the Rules, 2018 which made provision as an exception to the existing saw mills. Therefore, the action of the officials of the respondent No.3 is illegal. Hence, this petition is filed. 3. Ms.Baliboyina Sravani, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests placed on record a copy of the written instructions of the District Forest Officer, Eluru vide Rc.No.7420/2009-E6, dated 04.01.2026 in which it is stated briefly as follows: The licence granted in Form-II licence to the petitioner was valid up to 31.12.2014. The petitioner submitted application for a renewal of the licence for the year 2015, on 02.12.2014, as per Rule 6 (2) of the Rules, 1969, if no renewal application is submitted to the licencing authority up to 1 st December, a late fee of Rs.250/- shall be levied upto February succeeding year irrespective of the duration of the delay. If the application for the renewal of the licence is not submitted before the end of February, it will be deemed that the licence has lapsed and the owner of the wood based industry should apply for a fresh licence and the security deposit available with the licencing authority shall stand forfeited. If the application for the renewal of the licence is not submitted before the end of February, it will be deemed that the licence has lapsed and the owner of the wood based industry should apply for a fresh licence and the security deposit available with the licencing authority shall stand forfeited. Further, Rule 3 (2) of the Rules, 2018, “no licence for setting up fresh wood based industry within a distance of 5 kilometres from the boundary of any forest under control of the forest department whether notified or not shall be granted, except when it is required for departmental use”. As per Rule 3 (4) of the Rules, 2018, “the distance restriction as mentioned in Rule 3 (2) of the Rules, 2018 will not be applicable to a wood based industry established in an industrial estate or a municipal area.” Therefore, the S.L.C. approved the permission for grant of fresh licence under Rule 10 (2) r/w 3 (2) and 3 (4) of the Rules, 2018. But, the saw mill of the petitioner is located at a distance of 1.41 kilometres from the Marlagudem reserve forest. Therefore, speaking order was passed by the District Forest Officer, Eluru vide proceeding in Rc.No.2420 / 2009-S5, dated 25.02.2023 informing the petitioner that the licence cannot be renewed, however, making it clear that the petitioner is at liberty to apply to shift the saw mill beyond 5 kilometres from the reserved forest under Rule 11 of the Rules, 2018 and apply for fresh grant of licence and thereafter, the same will be forwarded to S.L.C. for necessary action. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had been paying the fee for renewal of the licence, the officials of the respondents are troubling the petitioner as stated in the petition. He further submitted that the alleged proceeding of the District Forest Officer, Eluru, dated 25.02.2023 had not been communicated to the petitioner and no proof was filed before this Court that it was communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that the high handed action of the respondents is illegal and necessary direction may be issued to the respondents not to threaten the petitioner to shift the saw mill. 5. Therefore, he submitted that the high handed action of the respondents is illegal and necessary direction may be issued to the respondents not to threaten the petitioner to shift the saw mill. 5. Ms.Baliboyina Sravani, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests, basing on the written instructions and the documents enclosed to it, submitted that in the year 2015 itself, the licence of the petitioner had lapsed and therefore, the petitioner is entitled only for grant of fresh licence as decided by the S.L.C. way back in the year 2020 and that in view of the enforcement of the Rules, 2018, a fresh license cannot be granted to the petitioner as the saw mill is located within 5 kilometres from contour of the reserved forest and accordingly, the proceeding, dated 25.02.2023 was issued by the District Forest Officer, Eluru and the same had been communicated to the petitioner through registered post as seen from the stamp affixed on the copy visible from the document filed along with the written instructions. She further submitted that the remedy available to the petitioner is as indicated in the proceeding, dated 25.02.2023 or to challenge the said proceeding by way of appeal under Rule 16 of the Rules, 2018, before the Conservator of Forests and not by filing writ petition here. She further submitted that even though it is considered, for the sake of arguments, that the copy of the proceeding dated 25.02.2023 had not been communicated to the petitioner, since its copy is enclosed to the written instructions and was also served on the counsel for the petitioner, it may be treated as notice and therefore, the remedy available to the petitioner is only to challenge the said proceeding. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that opportunity may be given to the petitioner to challenge the said proceeding and till such time the interest of the petitioner may be protected by necessary direction to the respondents. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests submitted that as per Rule 16 of the Rules, 2018, an appeal shall be filed within 30 days from the date of service of notice. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the necessary fee for renewal of the licence for the year, 2026 had been paid within stipulated period. 9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests submitted that as per Rule 16 of the Rules, 2018, an appeal shall be filed within 30 days from the date of service of notice. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the necessary fee for renewal of the licence for the year, 2026 had been paid within stipulated period. 9. In view of the order already passed by the District Forest Officer, Eluru vide proceeding dated 25.02.2023, the petitioner needs to challenge the same by filing an appeal. Since, except filing a copy of the proceeding, no proof of service of proceeding on the petitioner has been filed, treating the service of the copy of the proceeding today as the date relevant under Rule 16 of the Rules, 2018, for the purpose of preferring appeal, it is a case fit to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer the appeal before appropriate authority. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to take steps to challenge the proceeding of the District Forest Officer, Eluru vide Rc.No.2420/2009-S5, dated 25.02.2023 within 30 days from today. Thereafter, the concerned party/respondent No.2 shall dispose of the appeal within two (02) months from the date of filing the appeal. Till disposal of the appeal, the respondents shall not interfere with functioning of the saw mill of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.