IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32037 of 2010 Between: Vadla Vittal ..... Petitioner AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by the Special Chief Secretary to Government Environment, Forest, Science, Technology Department, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V. Ravichandran Counsel for the respondents: GP for Forests The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32037 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of a saw mill. He was granted saw mill licence under A.P. Saw Mill (Regulation) Rules 1969 on 28.04.2001, which was valid up to 31.12.2001. The said saw mill licence was renewed for the year 2002. However, when the petitioner’s application for further renewal of the licence was pending, respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 27.11.2002 cancelling his saw mill licence and directing him not to apply for its renewal for the year 2003. Questioning the said cancellation order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.466 of 2003, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 22.08.2007. Against the said order, the respondents filed Writ Appeal No.1008 of 2008, wherein the Division Bench has stayed the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 15.10.2008. On 14.12.2010, the subordinates of respondent No.3 took away the motor, the saw and the wheel belt from the saw mill. The petitioner has remitted renewal fee vide challan dated 16.11.2010 and requested respondent No.3 to renew his licence for the year 2011. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has assailed the inaction of respondent No.3 in renewing his saw mill licence. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests, I am of the opinion that since the Division Bench has stayed the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge, the order canceling the saw mill licence of the petitioner stood revived. Unless the petitioner succeeds in the Writ Appeal or in getting the interim order granted in the said Writ Appeal vacated, the order of cancellation of licence continues to be in force. As long as the order of cancellation remains in force, the petitioner cannot seek renewal of the saw mill licence. In the face of this admitted situation, no relief can be granted in this Writ Petition. The petitioner shall be free to pursue the pending Writ Appeal and seek appropriate relief therein. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.40730 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.02.2011 ES