Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34633 (AP)

M/s Sri Durga Saw & Lime Dung Sawmill, v. The State of A.P.Rep. by its Prl.Secretary,

WP/35840/2014 · 2025-07-20

B S Bhanumathi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 BSB, J W.P.No.35840 of 2014 APHC010539072014 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: 35840 of 2014 Between: 1. M/s Sri Durga Saw & Lime Dung Sawmill, Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna District, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri. Ch. Prasad. ...Petitioner and 1. The State of A.P. Rep by its Prl. Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department, Secretariat at Hyderabad. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Krishna Division, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. The Central Empowered Committee Rep. by its Member, Secretary, 2nd Floor, Chanikya Bhavan, Chanikyapuri, New Delhi. ...Respondents 2 BSB, J W.P.No.35840 of 2014 Counsel for the petitioner: Voosa Raghu Counsel for the respondents: GP for Forests (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: “… for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction, and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.2163 of 2009 passed by the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.2163/2009V4(xiii), dated 30.09.2014, cancelling the permission accorded by the 1st respondent for installation of additional saw band (Horizontal saw band) in the petitioner’s Saw Mill as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Rc.No,2163/2009-V4 (xiii), dated 30.09.2014, in the interest of justice and to pass…” 2. Sri C.H.Raghavulu, (24737) learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no further order is required. 3 BSB, J W.P.No.35840 of 2014 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 licensing authorities with respect to passing of the order on submission of applications by the petitioners in Form-1 as directed therein. 4. In the result, in view of the representation on both sides, the petition is dismissed as no further order required. 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 4 BSB, J W.P.No.35840 of 2014 52 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Writ Petition No:35840 of 2014 Dated :21.07.2025 KKV