The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.28384 of 2011 Date: 20.10.2011 Between: M/s.Sri Veera Raghava Timber Depot & Saw Mill, Rep. by its Owner Sri Ch.Ravinder ..... Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (FOR.III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.Ravichandran Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Forests The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set-aside order in Ref.No.1923/2011-V4, dated 15-06-2011, of respondent No.4. I have heard Sri V.Ravichandran, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests, representing the respondents. The petitioner is a licensee for running a saw-mill and he made an application, dated 11-04-2011, for permission to shift the saw-mill in order to relocate the same. In the said application, the petitioner sought for permission to shift the saw-mill to R.S.No.383/10 of A.Konduru Village from the existing premises in R.S.No.397/3a of A.Konduru Village. By the impugned proceedings, respondent No.4 has rejected the said application. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the only ground of rejection is that no relocation of saw mills shall be permitted from outside of 5 K.Ms. radius of the forest area to an area within 5 K.Ms. of such forest area. Respondent No.4, however, in the impugned order stated that the petitioner’s saw mill is presently situated within 5 K.Ms. radius from Indrakeeladri protected forest and that the proposed saw-mill is also within 5 K.Ms. radius from the said protected forest. In my opinion, the ground of rejection for shifting, purportedly on the prohibition contained in G.O.Ms.No.91, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (For.III) Department, dated 11-7-2006, on the facts of the present case, is wholly unsustainable. As noted above, the said G.O. prohibits shifting of a saw-mill from outside of 5 K.Ms. radius to within the said radius of forest area. This necessarily means that if a saw mill is already located within 5 K.Ms. radius of the forest area, there is no prohibition on its shifting to some other location within the same radius. On the own showing of respondent No.4, the petitioner’s saw mill is situated within 5 K.Ms. radius of Indrakeeladri protected forest and the petitioner is seeking to shift his saw mill to another place within the same radius on the ground that shifting has become inevitable in view of road widening. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the prohibition contained in G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 11-7-2006, on the basis of which the impugned rejection is made, has no application to the petitioner’s case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside. Respondent No.4 is directed to permit the petitioner to shift the saw-mill to the proposed place within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel, WPMP.No.35052 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 20th October, 2011 Note: Furnish CC in five days. (B/o) LUR