APHC010462212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1028 of 2025 along with W.A.Nos.1038 & 1187 of 2025 Bench Sr.Nos:- 12-14 [3552] W.A.No.1028 of 2025: The Conservator of Forests and others ...Appellants Vs. Syed Acramunisa ...Respondent ********** Advocate for Appellants : GP for Forests Advocate for Respondent : Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 5th January, 2026. Per Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ : Since the issue involved in these cases is similar, we propose to dispose of the same by way of this common judgment. W.A.No.1028 of 2025 2. The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 20.06.2024, passed in W.P.No.32597 of 2013. 3. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under: 2 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1028 of 2025 & batch The petitioner, primarily was aggrieved of the order, dated 10.06.2013, passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Proddatur, whereby the licence for operating the Saw Mill was revoked in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Saw Mill (Regulations) Rules, 1969, (in short, ‘the Rules of 1969’) on the ground that the Saw Mill, which was earlier operating from Sy.No.533/1 of Shivalayam Street of Proddatur Town, had been unauthorizedly and without seeking formal permission shifted to Sy.No.339 of Auto Nagar, Proddatur. It was held by the Divisional Forest Officer that the Saw Mill of the petitioner was located within five kilometres of Rameswaram Reserve Forest of Proddatur Range and was thus in violation of the Rules of 1969. The aforementioned order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Proddatur, was challenged in an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the Conservator of Forests, Kurnool Circle, Kurnool, who vide order, dated 24.10.2013, dismissed the appeal. 3. Being aggrieved of the orders so passed, the petitioner challenged the same in W.P.No.32597 of 2013. The writ petition was allowed and the orders of the Divisional Forest Officer as also the appellate authority were set aside. The learned Single Judge held that the Saw Mill was earlier situate within five kilometres radius from the nearest forest boundary and was subsequently shifted to a place, which was within five kilometres radius of the nearest forest boundary. It was thus held that the case at hand did not fall within the mischief of G.O.Ms.No.91, Environment, Forests, Science and Technology (FOR.III) Department, dated 11.07.2006. It was held that even 3 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1028 of 2025 & batch Rule 3(2) of the Rules of 1969, was not applicable in the instant case as the said Rules apply only for setting up of fresh Saw Mills within five kilometres radius from the nearest forest boundary. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for appellants would submit that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable in law and in that regard has placed reliance upon the judgment and order, dated 04.12.2024, in W.A.No.854 of 2024, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Thakur, J) was a Member. Reliance had been placed upon the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 11.07.2006, to bring home the point that the shifting of the Saw Mill in question was impermissible, even if the same was situate within the prohibited zone. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. It is not denied that the Saw Mill in question which was being operated was situated within the five kilometres of the Rameswaram Reserve Forest of Proddatur Range. The relocated site was also within the five kilometres radius of the said Reserve Forest. It is, however, not denied that the relocation was done without seeking permission from the concerned authorities. At this stage, it may be worthwhile to make a brief reference to 4 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1028 of 2025 & batch certain relevant provisions of the Rules of 1969 as also G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 11.07.2006. 7. The Andhra Pradesh Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969, were framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 29 r/w Section 68 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967. These Rules inter alia govern the establishment, shifting and regulation of the Saw Mills in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Rule 3(1) of the said Rules envisages the requirement of licence from the licensing authority for installation, erection and operation of a Saw Mill. Rule 3(2) of the said Rules is relevant and is reproduced as under: “No licence for setting up fresh Saw Mills within a distance of 5 Km. from the boundary of any Forest under the control of the Forest Department whether notified or not shall be granted, except when it is required for Departmental use.” Rule 5(2) of the Rules, 1969, envisages that the licence granted under the aforesaid Rules for Saw Mills located within five kilometres of the forest boundary shall not be transferable. Rule 5(4) of the Rules, 1969, further envisages that in case the Saw Mill premises is to be changed, or when the machinery is to be shifted from one place to another within same forest division, such changes should not be done without the prior approval of licensing authority. 5 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1028 of 2025 & batch 8. On 11.07.2006, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.91, in deference to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and others1. Clause 4(1) of the said G.O. reads as under – „No relocation shall be allowed into the area prohibited under AP Saw Mill Rules. It means no Saw Mill shall be shifted from outside of 5 km radius from the forest area to within 5 km of forest area. However, shifting will be allowed from within the 5 kms of forest area to outside.‟ 9. A similar question arose in W.A.No.854 of 2024. What was held by the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph Nos.14 & 15 is reproduced hereunder: “14. In our opinion, G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 11.07.2006, does not envisage any prohibition if the shifting was of a Saw Mill which was located in a prohibited zone and the relocation was also sought within the prohibited zone if both the locations were otherwise in the same forest division as envisaged in terms of Rule 5(4) of the Rules of 1969. 15. In the present case, however, admittedly the petitioner‟s unit was located in one forest division in Kapavaram Village of East Godavari District, and relocation was sought in a different forest division in Vattigudipadu Village in Agiripalli Mandal of Krishna District.” 10. It will not be out of place here to mention that earlier the licence to operate the Saw Mill was issued in favour of one, Sri S. Abdul Khadar, who had set up the Saw Mill in Sy.No.533/1, Shivalayam Street, Proddatur Town. This was subsequently sold to Sri Syed Mahaboob Basha, the husband of the 1 1997 (2) SCC 267 6 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1028 of 2025 & batch petitioner, in the year, 2012. The ownership was transferred and permitted by the Divisional Forest Officer by proceedings, dated 25.01.2012. The transfer permitted in favour of the petitioner’s husband in the year, 2012, would be hit by the provisions of Rule 5(2) of the Rules of 1969, which specifically envisages as under: “The licence granted under these rules for Saw Mills located within five kilometres of forest boundary shall not be transferable.” Apart from this, it can clearly be seen that even for purposes of relocation, Rule 5(4) of the Rules of 1969 specifically envisaged to be done with the prior approval of the licensing authority and reads thus: „In case the Saw Mill premises is to be changed, or when the machinery is to be shifted from one place to another within same forest division, such changes should not be done without prior approval of licensing authority.‟ Admittedly, no such permission had been obtained by the petitioner or predecessor in interest from the competent authority. 11. Learned counsel for the private respondent, however, would submit that the provisions of the Rules of 1969 or for that matter G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 11.07.2006, would have no application in the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of subsequent developments when the Andhra Pradesh Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2018, came into force. 7 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1028 of 2025 & batch Reference in this regard was made to Rule 3 of the Rules of 2018 and in particular Rule 3(4), which reads as under: “3. No wood based industry without licence- (1) No person shall install, erect or operate a Wood Based Industry for cutting, converting or sawing of timber without obtaining a licence for such installation from the Licensing Authority. (2) No Licence for setting up fresh wood based industry within a distance of 5km from the boundary of any forest under control of Forest Department whether notified or not shall be granted except when it is required for Departmental use. (3) The distance of 5km shall be computed from topo sheets as of Survey of India as aerial distance as crow flies. (4) The distance restriction as mentioned in sub-rule (2) above will not be applicable to a wood based industry established in an industrial estate or a municipal area.” 12. It is stated that since the Saw Mill in question is situated within the municipal area of Proddatur and also within an industrial estate, therefore the distance required in terms of Rule 3(2) would not be applicable to the Saw Mill of the petitioner. ‘Wood Based Industry’ is defined under Rule 2(i) to include a Saw Mill. 13. Rule 11 of the Rules of 2018 also is relevant and is reproduced hereunder: “11. Transfer of licence on sale succession and relocation of any wood based industry. (1) On receipt of an application for such transfer of licence / relocation of wood based industry, the licensing authority shall make such enquiry as he deems fit, and after satisfying himself, whether or not there would be any objection to grant permission for transfer of license/ relocation of a wood based industry applied for, having regard to safeguard the timber in any reserved, protected, proposed, or private forest, number of wood based industries existing in the area may submit to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, through the Circle Head with remarks, to place before the State Level Committee. 8 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1028 of 2025 & batch (2) No relocation of wood based industries shall be allowed into the area prohibited under these rules. However shifting will be allowed from within the 5 Kms of forest area to outside as approved by the State Level Committee. (3) No relocation of Wood Based Industry located within 5kms of forest area shall be allowed within 5kms radius of the forest area. .........” 14. While the Rules of 2018 and in particular Rule 3(4) do make a provision for ‘Wood Based Industry’ to be outside the restriction of distance as mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, it applies only for setting up fresh wood based industries, the relocation is covered under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2018. 15. Moreover, there is no question of applying the Rules of 2018 in the instant case, inasmuch as the petitioner is neither registered as a wood based industry under the 2018 Rules nor was any request made by it to consider its case for relocation, in accordance with the said Rules. The entire basis for cancellation of the license of the petitioner was its unauthorized translocation from Shivalayam Street, Proddatur Town to Auto Nagar in Proddatur. It appears from the order impugned passed by the Divisional Forest Officer (Wild Life), Proddatur, that despite opportunity having been granted to the petitioner to produce the records for justifying the shifting and transfer of the Saw Mill, the petitioner was unable to do so. 16. Be that as it may, while it may be open to the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned for consideration, for grant of license, if it is otherwise eligible, strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2018. The 9 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1028 of 2025 & batch petitioner, however, cannot succeed in the challenge to the order of cancellation of the Saw Mill. The judgment and order impugned, in the light of the discussion hereinabove, is therefore unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. W.A.No.1038 of 2025 17. Issues involved in the present Writ Appeal are almost similar to the ones which we have dealt with in W.A.No.1028 of 2025 hereinabove. 18. The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 21.02.2024, passed in W.P.No.16050 of 2016. 19. This was a case where license was initially issued in favour of one K. Subramanya Chari for running Sri Raja Rajeswari Saw Mill in Onipenta Village of Y.S.R. Kadapa District vide order dated 19.11.1995. Subsequently, the Saw Mill was shifted to Survey No.643 in Gopavaram Panchayath at Produttur Mandal in Y.S.R. Kadapa District vide proceedings dated 12.02.2009. It can be seen from the record that the ownership of the Saw Mill was transferred from Sri K. Subramanyam Achari to the petitioner, Sri C. Chand Valli, on 12.02.2009, and thereafter renewal granted up to 31.12.2012. 20. It appears that a report was received by the Flying Squad of the Kadapa Forest Division that the Saw Mill was situate within 5 km. radius from the Reserve Forest which was impermissible in terms of the Rules of 1969 10 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1028 of 2025 & batch and G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 11.07.2006. It was in those circumstances that the Divisional Forest Officer (Wild Life) revoked the license as per Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1969 and an appeal was preferred before the Conservator of Forest, Kurnool Circle, Kurnool, which did came to be dismissed on the ground that Rule 5(2) of the Rules of 1969 prohibited any transfer of license granted under the said Rules within 5 km. of Forest boundary. 21. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the learned Single Judge set aside the orders of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Kurnool, dated 12.04.2016, on the ground that the Saw Mill in question was in existence since 2004. Reliance was placed upon G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 11.07.2006, which was held to be not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of Divisional Forest Officer v. Sree Venkateswara Saw Mills,2 wherein it was held that Saw Mills could be shifted to another location within the same Forest division but only after the prior approval of the licensing authority. 22. While we are in agreement with the ratio of the judgment laid down in Sree Venkateswara Saw Mills(supra), yet the learned single judge did not at all consider the rigour of Rule 5(2) of the 1969 Rules which prohibited transfer of a license itself for a Saw Mill, situated within 5 km. from the boundary of the Reserve Forest. 2 2002 (4) ALD 55 11 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1028 of 2025 & batch 23. In our opinion, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable in law. 24. For the reasons mentioned above, the judgment and order impugned is hereby set aside. W.A.No.1187 of 2025 Issues involved in the present Writ Appeal are almost similar to the ones which we have dealt with in W.A.No.1028 of 2025 hereinabove. 25. The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 20.06.2024, passed in W.P.No.32613 of 2013. 26. In this case, the Divisional Forest Officer (Wild Life), Proddatur, revoked the Saw Mill license in terms of Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1969 on the ground that while there was an order of transfer of license from the original owner in favour of the petitioner, there was no order permitting shifting of the Saw Mill to the new location, which was hit by Rule 5(4) of the Rules of 1969. An appeal against the said order, before the Chief Conservator of Forests, also was dismissed and the order of the Divisional Forest Officer (Wild Life) was upheld. 27. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the orders impugned on the ground that Rule 3(2) of 1969 Rules would apply only to fresh Saw Mill licenses which were to be setup within 5 km. radius of 12 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1028 of 2025 & batch the nearest forest boundary and it did not apply to the Saw Mill of the petitioner as it was not a fresh Saw Mill and was in existence since 1983. It held that the respondent authorities had transferred the ownership of the said Saw Mill in favour of the petitioner in the year 2012, after duly considering the location in which the Saw Mill was being shifted and having not raised any objection at that moment with regard to the permission to translocate, the license of the petitioner could not have been revoked. 28. It is a settled principle of law that there cannot be an estoppel against law and if a Rule exists, it has to be followed in its letter and spirit. In U.T., Chandigarh v. Goswami, GDSDC3, it was held: “4. … [The Administration] only corrected a patent mistake which could not be permitted to subsist. … A contract in violation of the mandatory provisions of law can only be read and enforced in terms of the law and in no other way. The question of equitable estoppel does not arise in this case because there can be no estoppel against a statute.” 29. The fact that ownership was transferred and the license renewed, would not prevent the appellants to revoke the license granted in favour a licensee, in this case, the petitioner, in case the authorities realized that the same was in gross violation of the statutory provisions. 30. Admittedly, the petitioner in the instant case could not have become the licensee as no transfer of license was permissible in terms of Rule 5(2) of the Rules of 1969, much less was there any application filed by 3 (1996) 7 SCC 665 13 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1028 of 2025 & batch either the erstwhile owner, from whom the petitioner had got his interest in the Saw Mill, or for that matter the petitioner himself seeking for regularization of the translocation, notwithstanding the fact that the rejection would be a foregone conclusion in terms of the provisions of Rule 5(2). 31. For the reasons mentioned above, the judgment and order impugned is hereby set aside. 32. Accordingly, W.A.Nos.1028, 1038 and 1187 of 2025 shall stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. Kbs/SSN 14 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1028 of 2025 & batch 28 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN W.A.Nos.1028, 1038 & 1187 of 2025 Dt: 05.01.2026 kbs