Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11978 (AP)

M/S Goldsmith Co-operative Cottage v. The state of Andhra Pradesh ,

WP/4544/2015 · 2025-07-20

B S Bhanumathi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 BSB, J W.P.No.4544 of 2015 APHC010140362015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Monday, the Twenty First Day of July Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 4544 OF 2015 Between: 1. M/S Goldsmith Co-operative Cottage, Industrial Society Limited, Raghudevapuram, East Godavari District, Rep by its President, Pallerlamudi Venkateswar Rao, S/o Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 63 years. ...Petitioner and 1. The state of Andhra Pradesh, Environment Forests, Science and Technology, (Section. II) department, Rep by Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. Forest Range Officer, Gokavaram, East Godvari District. 3. District Forest Officer, Kakinada Division, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 BSB, J W.P.No.4544 of 2015 5. Central Empowered Committee, Rep by its Member Secretary, 2nd Floor, Chanikya Bhavan, Chanikyapuri , New Delhi. ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Y.Sudhakar Counsel for the respondents: GP for Forests (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “… to issue any appropriate Writ Order or Direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Proceedings Rc.No.5719/1999P1 dated 23.12.2014 cancelling the permission of installation of Additional Horizontal Band saw to the petitioner saw mill as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19 1 g of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Proceedings Rc.No.5719/1999P1 dated 23.12.2014 in the interest of justice and pass…” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no further order is required. 3 BSB, J W.P.No.4544 of 2015 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forest submitted that a batch of writ petitions vide W.P.Nos.25866 of 2014 and others were disposed of on 19.09.2018 dealing with the same issue permitting the petitioners to submit their applications in Form-1 to the licensing authority within four weeks from the date of the order and thereupon the licensing authority to process the same within three months thereafter and till such time, the petitioners can continue to run their wood based industry and in the same order, this Court instructed the Chief Conservator of Forest to issue necessary instructions to all the licencing authorities with respect to passing of the order on submission of applications by the petitioners in Form-1 as directed therein. 4. She further placed on record the written instructions of the District Forest Officer (F.A.C.), East Godavari Division, Rajamahendravaram to the learned Government Pleader for Forest, vide Lr.R.C.No.835/2022-P1 dated 14.05.2025 in which it was stated that the proceedings issued by the D.F.O. on 23.12.2014 was in accordance with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.No.202/1995 and the clarification issued by the Central Empowered Committee vide file NO.2-21/CEC/SC/2013 P1-VI, dated 18.06.2014, however, an opportunity had been provided to the sawmill owner to approach the C.E.C. through Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, to examine his request, if any, in this regard, but, without approaching through proper channel, the writ petition had been filed. It was also stated that the petitioner had paid the sawmill licence renewal fee every year and it had been renewed up to 4 BSB, J W.P.No.4544 of 2015 31.12.2024 for the machineries (1) Vertical Saw (16HP) and (2) Horizontal Saw (16HP). 5. In the result, in view of the representation on both sides, the petition is disposed of as no further order is required, however, with liberty to the petitioner to seek prior permission as required under law to increase the capacity of the machinery. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated :21.07.2025 KKV 5 BSB, J W.P.No.4544 of 2015 25 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Writ Petition No: 4544 of 2015 Dated :21.07.2025 KKV