Telangana High Court
WP/29335/2009 of Shaik Moihiddin Basha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary on 31 December 2009
SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.29326 and 29335 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner, in W.P.No.29326 of 2009, was granted a Saw Mill licence by the Divisional Forest Officer, Srikakulam, in May 2002. The petitioners, in W.P.No.29335, were granted such licences by the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.29326 and 29335 of 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioner, in W.P.No.29326 of 2009, was granted a SawMill licence by the Divisional Forest Officer, Srikakulam, in May 2002. The petitioners, in W.P.No.29335, were granted such licences by theDivisional Forest Officer, Krishna Division, Vijayawada, in the year2003. In W.P.No.202 of 1995, filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,the matter, relating to protection and preservation of forests all over thecountry, was taken up. Directions, which are special and general innature, were issued from time to time. To ensure that the directions areimplemented, a Central Empowered Committee (CEC), wasconstituted.
In one of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, relating tothe establishment of Saw Mills, it was found that indiscriminatory grant of Saw Mill licences contributed to the illicit falling of trees, andthereby, denudation of forests. It was directed that any fresh licenceshall be issued, only with the approval of the CEC. Certainclarifications were issued in Civil Appeal Nos.669 and 670 of 2002.
On finding that the licences issued to the petitioners were incontravention of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, showcause notices were issued to the petitioners, by the respectiveDivisional Forest Officers, in the year 2006. On consideration of theexplanations submitted by the petitioners, licences issued to themwere cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted applications forgrant of fresh licences. The applications, in turn, were forwarded to theCEC. The petitioners state that in its report, dated 10.12.2008, theCEC made an observation to the effect that the petitioners can begranted fresh licences, and despite the same, no action has beentaken by the officials of the Forest Department of the State of AndhraPradesh.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Forests.
The Saw Mill licences that were issued to the petitioners werecancelled, on the ground that they are in contravention of the orderspassed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the petitioners submittedfresh applications, and as required under the directions of theSupreme Court, the applications were forwarded to the CEC. Ameeting has taken place among the CEC, Officials of the StateGovernment and representatives of the Industry, on 10.12.2008. TheCommittee observed that as many as 282 licences were granted in theState of Andhra Pradesh, subsequent to the orders of the SupremeCourt, dated 30.12.2002, and all of them were cancelled thereafter. The Committee took the view that all the 282 Saw Mills, whoselicences were cancelled, would be considered for grant of licence, onpayment of one time penalty of Rs.10,000/-, per vertical band sawmills, and Rs.1.5 lakh, per horizontal band saw mills, as has beendone in the States of Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and otherStates. The petitioners contend that their names figure in the list of282 Saw Mills and that they are prepared to abide by the conditions.
Once the CEC has expressed its opinion that fresh licence canbe granted to the Saw Mills, whose licences were cancelled, on theground that the earlier licences were issued in contravention of thedirections of the Supreme Court, there cannot be any justification forthe respondents, to keep the applications pending, indefinitely,particularly when the petitioners are willing to abide by the conditions.
Hence, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, directing that therespective Divisional Forest Officers, shall consider the feasibility ofgranting licences to the petitioners, in case the names of thepetitioners occur, in the list of Saw Mills enclosed to the report, dated10.12.2009, of the Central Empowered Committee and if thepetitioners comply with the conditions mentioned therein. Thisexercise shall be completed within a period of two months from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
31[st] December 2009
GJ
_______________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J