Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/25635/2024 of MOHAMMAD SAWMILL Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 10 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 25635/2024 Between: 1. MOHAMMAD SAWMILL, RAILWAY KODUR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR
APHC010498332024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
Between:
1. MOHAMMAD
SAWMILL,
RAILWAY
KODUR,
ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR P. DHANUNJAYA, S/O
VENKATASWAMI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O M.G. ROAD, RAILWAY KODUR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS SPECIAL CHEIF
SECRETARY ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD
OF FOREST FORCE,. ARANYA BHAVAN, P.V.S.LAND MARK, NEAR
APIIC
TOWERS,
MANGALAGIRI,
GUNTUR
DISTRICT-522503,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE
CONSERVATOR
OF
FORESTS,
KAPILATHEERTHAM,
TIRUPATHI.
4. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, ANNAMAYYA (T) DIVISION, RAJAMPET.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of 4th respondent vide Rc.No.2759/2000/S5 dated 27.10.2024 as highly arbitrary, illegal, null and
void and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Sawmill (Regulation) Rules, 1969 and amendments made thereafter and also in violation of law declared by this Hon'ble Court and to set aside the same and consequentially to direct the 4th respondent to renew the license of the petitioner and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to run the petitioner sawmill by duly suspending the proceedings issued by the 4*'’ respondent vide Rc.No.2759/2000/S5 dated 27.10.2024, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pas Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SUDEEPTHI POTLURI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR FORESTS
2. GP FOR FORESTS
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.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition was filed questioning the action of the respondent No.4 in issuing impugned proceedings in Rc.No.2759/2000/S5 dated 27.10.2024, rejecting the renewal of the license of the petitioner.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Ms. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petition may be disposed of, giving liberty to prefer an appeal before the competent authority challenging the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.2759/2000/S5 dated 27.10.2024, rejecting renewal of the license of the petitioner on the ground that the sawmill is located within 5 km of the forest area.
3. Ms.K.Siva Jyothi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests is in attendance and would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.
4. In the light of the above submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.4 to take measurements in the presence of the petitioner and take appropriate decision according to Governing Rules and Law, in case, if it is falling beyond the five kilometers, the respondent- authorities are at liberty to take appropriate decision for renewal of the license. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) weeks from this day. Till then, respondent authorities shall not disturb the business activity of the petitioner. However, the petitioner is at liberty to workout their remedies according to law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 11.08.2026. UPS
Dt.11.08.2026
UPS