THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 31476 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been ﬁled seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing the Gutka of the petitioner’s saw mill on 23.11.2011 without issuing any notice or passing any order as arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently, to direct the 2 nd respondent to return the Gutka forthwith to the petitioner. 2. Case of the petitioner, in brief, may be stated as follows: Husband of the petitioner had been running a saw mill in the name and style of Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Saw Mill in Kodumur Village of Kurnool District. After death of her husband on 09.06.2010, she made an application for transfer of the saw mill licence in her favour and the 1st respondent vide proceedings, dated 16.07.2011, accorded permission for the said purpose. The 1st respondent issued a notice dated 18.08.2009 to her husband in proceedings Rc. No. 4312/01-H3, stating that he is running horizontal machine with 20 H.P. E.M. without prior approval and consequently, directed to remove the horizontal saw. Questioning the said notice, her husband ﬁled Writ Petition No.1048 of 2010 and this Court passed an interim order permitting the petitioner therein to have one horizontal and one vertical saw as provided for under licence. During the lifetime of her husband, the 1st respondent renewed the saw mill licence for a period of three years up to 31.12.2012 and the licensee is permitted to install and run one vertical and one horizontal saw. The said Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous on 14.07.2010. Taking advantage of that order, the respondents are now insisting her not to operate the horizontal machine. On 23.11.2011, at about 12.00 noon, the 2nd respondent visited the saw mill of the petitioner and seized the gutka without issuing prior notice or conducting any enquiry. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that seizing the gutka in the saw mill by the 2nd respondent without issuing any notice, is nothing but violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests supported the action of the 2nd respondent and stated that the saw mill is being permitted to run with 15 H.P.E.M., but it is found that 25 H.P.M.E. is in operation. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is running the saw mill with a valid licence. Her grievance is that without there being any notice, the gutka of the saw mill has been seized by the 2nd respondent on the ground that she violated the conditions of license as she has been running the saw mill with 25 H.P.E.M. It is not in dispute that the gutka is an essential part of saw mill and without the same, the petitioner cannot run the saw mill. 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to release the gutka to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to give an undertaking that the gutka will be used for running the saw mill with 15 H.P.E.M. only. This order will not preclude 2nd respondent in seizing the gutka if the petitioner violates the conditions of licence. No costs. -------------------- - (K.C. BHANU, J) 30th November 2011 ksld