WA/573/2021 of The State of Telangana Vs M/s Satyam Saw Mill and Timber Depot on 20 January 2026

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad 500 022.

2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of the Forest Force (HoFF), Telangana, Aranythavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad 500 004

3. The Chief Conservator of Forests and Field Director, Project Tiger, Kawal Tiger Reserye, Nirmal, Nirmal District.

4. The Forest Divisional Officer, Nirmal, Nirmal District.

5. The Forest Divisional Officer, Khanapur, Nirmal District.

6. The District Forest Officer, Nirmal, Nirmal District. ...APPELLANTS (Respondents) AND M/s Satyam Saw tt/ill and Timber Depot, Kamalkote of Dimmadurthy Range, Dimmadurthy, Nirmal Division, Nirmal District, Telangana State Rep. by its Owner Chinnam Satyanarayana S/o Peddanna, aged about 40 years, Resident of Khanapur, Nirmal Dist .. RESPONDENT (Petitioner) lA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 suspend the order made in WP No. 3225 of 2020dt231812021 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellants: GP FOR FORESTS Counsel for the Respondent SRI G. RAMAN GOUD The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

HIG[{ COURT FOR THE STATB OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAT) .I-I{E [ION'BLE SRI JUSI'ICE K. LAKSHMAN ANI) THE I{ON'I}LIi SR.I JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Writ Anneal No.573 of 2021 Date:20.01.2026 Ilefiveen: l'he State o1'1'ellngana, Rep. by its Principal liecretar,v to Government, [':nvironrn,lnt, Forcsts, Scicnce & J'echnotog1,. [)epartrrient, 1'clangana Sccretal.iat, Hyderaba(l - -500 022 and five others. Appellar-rts And M/s. Satyarn Sarv Mill and Timber Depor, K arnal kote: of Di nrrnadurthy Range. Dirnrnadulthy. Nirmal f)ii,ision, Nirrnal District, 'l'c'lansana State, Itep. by,its owner Chi nnaur Satyanarayana. Respondent JUDGMIiNT: (l,er Ilon'blc Sri Ju.stit:c K.l.ctkshman) Ileard Iearrred covernnrent pleacler for Forest and Sri G. Rarnan GoLrd, learned counsel for the respondent.

Ireeling ag-erieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 23.08.2021 in writ petition No.3225 of 2oz0 passed bythe learned Single Judge, the appellants preferred the present ir-rtra court appeal, under ClaLrse 1 5 of the Letter Patettt'

3. l'he respondent/writ petitioner filed the albresaid u'rit petition challenging the order dated 22.06.2019' which were confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 16.01 .2020. Vide said order dated 22.06.2019, the Authorized Officer/Forest Divisional Officer, Nirnlal, Appellant No.4 calrcellecl the license o1'tlte respondent. 'l-he said proceedilrgs were corrfirmed by the appellate authority/Appellar-rt No'3 on 16.01 .2020. Chatlenging the said orders, the rvrit petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition.

4. l'he learned Government Pleader for Forests would contend that the appellants have filed counter in the rryrit petition narrating all the facts including the provisions of'the Act, rules and relevant provisions of the Statute etc. They have also filed copies of the statements of the proprietor, accountir.nt of the Saw ,rill a,d driver of the vehicle. They have also filed additionar statenre,ts and copy of poR.

5. It is not the case ol'the appeltants that thcy,have visited writ petitioner Saw ntill and the1, have found any irregularity in tl-re rer:orcls nraintai.ed by the.r inclLrdi,g the stock. It is the speciljc ,:asc ol'the appeilants lrercirr that the Forest Divisional o{ficer. I(hanapLrr has submittecl a report dated 17.04.201g stati.g that he recei,ecl i.tbrrnation ancl o, receipt of the said ir-rfbr,iation, he along ii itlr Deputy R.o. Khanapur and other staff ru:;hed ,ear Sat'am Brick Industry, vidyanagar, KhanapLr'and lbr-rnd a vehicle i.e., 'fata 407 Exz van bearing No. TS I 8 I' 1804 i, *,hich ce,rent bricks were loaded. on approaching the vehiclc. it was {.ound that the vehicle was Ioaded with teak logs be,eath cernent b.icks and on searching the surrorrndi,gs, a person by name Bonagiri Thirumal Rao from Khanapur was found a,d renraining persons ran away. on searching the vehicle by the staff, they noticed r 0 teak logs in the vehicle without any permit or hammer marks along with \ \

cement bricks. Further, the staff concluded that the teak logs were being transported illegally without any valid permits and seized the vehicle along with teak logs uttder cover of spot panchatrama and quantity of teak logs were ttreasured as l0/0.916 curt valued at Rs.87,482/-. They have seized the 'chicle ald brolrght to the Range Complex, Kharrapur' .Ihe staff errqr-rired into the case and found that five persons were i.volvcd i, the case and therefore, they have registered a Prelintirtary offerrce Report (PoR). Thus, tlrey have follori'ed the procedure laid down under law and they have also issued show cause notice and called for the explanation from the writ petitioner. Thus, they have afforded an opportunity to the writ petitioner- in accordance with law. Thereafter, the appellant No.4/cornpetent authority passed impugned orders cancelling the license issued to the writ petitioner. It is a reasoned order

6. .[hus, the appellants herein fited counter in the aforesaid writ petition narrating the aforesaid facts and also filed copies ofthedocumentsinsupportofthesame.Theyhavealso //

specifically relied uporl Rule ll(l) of the Telangana wood BasecJ lndustries (Regr"rlatiorr) ftules, 2016 in G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 26.09.2016, relevanr proi,'isions of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967, [{ules nrade thercunder, the Telangana lrorest Produc:e J-ransit Rulcs, 1970 and also the principle laict down by the Apex court in several judgments, to contend that they have ,tlllowed the procedure laid down under Iaw while passinll the inrpLrgned rervocation order of'the appellant No.4 confirrned by appellant No.3. without considering the said aspects;, tl-re learned Single Judge, vide impugned order set aside the proceedings holdirre tl-lat the w,rit petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle and as well as owner of the Saw mill. The counter affida'it is silent with regard to any inspection being made to veri0, rvhether any contraband is presenl in the Saw mill with the Saw rnill records, or any kind of irrellularity or seizure of contraband from the Saw mill of the writ petitioner. Hence, the appellants miserably failed to establish involvement of the writ petitioner Saw mill in the alleged off,ence.

1. It is the specillc contention of the appellants herein that Mr. Chinnam satyanarayana, who is the proprietor of u'rit petitioner Saw rnill i.e., Satyatn Saw' Mill arrd 'f irnber Depot, is also the proprietor ol' Satyartl Brick Industry, Vidyanagar, Klrarrapur and he is also the owner of the Tata 407 EXZ van bearirrg No. -f S I 8 'f lti04. Thus, the appellants have established the ncxus between the writ petitioner, brick industry and the vehicle.

8. [t is also speci{ic contention of the appellants herein that the appellants lrave revokecl the license of the writ petitioner ou the grourrd that it has violated the provisions of the Forest Act and the aforementioned Rules etc. By following the said procedure only, the appellants revoked the license of the writ petitioner and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority. Despite the said specific contention, the learned

Single Judge did not consider the said aspects in the impugned order. Therelbre, the irlpr-rgrrecl order is not in consideration o1'the atbresaid aspects and pror,,isions of law including the statemr:nts of the proprietor o1'the ririt petitioner Sarv mill, Satyan-L Brick lndr-rstry and or,i,ner of tlre, said vehicle.

9. I r the light o{'the albresaid discussion, this writ appeal is arllowcrl and accordingll, the irnpugnecl orclcr datcd 23.08.2021 irr W.l'.No.3225 of 2020 is set asiclc and the marter is remarrded back to the learned Single Judge fbr disposal of the same in accordance r.r,ith [au' by, considering the aforesaid aspects including pleadings ot' the parties and also the docurnt:nts filed by both the partics. Libemy is granted to the writ petitioner to request the learncd Single Judge to dispose of the saic writ petition as expeditior-rsly as possible. The learned Single Judge shall decide thc afbresaid writ petition considering the material available without being influenced by any of the observations made in the present judgment. i I i ,

B To, As a sequel, pending rniscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.B. SATYAVATHI JO'NT REGIS //TRUE COPY// OFFICER BN BS 1- Two ccs to GP FoR FORESTS, High court for the state of relangana. lourl 2- The Section Officer writ Non-Service Section High Court for the State of Telangana 3' The Section Officer Posting Section-High Court fpf tt." State of Telangana.

4. One CC to SRt c. RA|VAI{-GOUD, Adiocate iOpULr

5. Two CD Copies

o' **- ,' HIGH COURT DATED:ll0l0112026 JUDGME,NT WA.No.573 of 2021 ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOU'T COSTS s ,J 1:,? * blb AL