IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.6263 of 2010 Between: Naigapula Madhava Rao ..... Petitioner AND 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.V.Anantha Krishna Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Forests The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the seizure of equipment relating to the petitioner’s saw mill by respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri M.V.Anantha Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Forests representing the respondents. The petitioner was found running a sawmill without a license. When the respondents sought to interfere with his running of sawmill, the petitioner filed O.S.No.53 of 2004 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, for perpetual injunction and the same was dismissed. Then the petitioner filed A.S.No.270 of 2006 in the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Kakinada, but the same was also dismissed. The petitioner claimed that he is seeking to file a Second Appeal against the said judgments. After disposal of A.S.No.270 of 2006, the respondents have seized the equipment from the petitioner’s premises. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the seizure of the equipment is illegal because his client has been continuously applying for renewal of sawmill license by paying requisite fee. The learned Counsel submitted that under Rule 6 (4) of the A.P.Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the Rules’), when a renewal application is submitted to the licensing authority, and till renewal license is received, the acknowledgment given by the licensing authority shall be treated as license by the Inspecting Officers. As the petitioner failed to raise proper pleading in this regard though he filed copies of certain challans purportedly showing payment of renewal fees, he is permitted to file a representation before respondent No.2 by placing reliance on Rule 6 (4) of the Rules. If the petitioner is able to satisfy respondent No.2 that he has submitted his renewal applications along with license fees within the prescribed time, respondent No.2 shall consider his application for release of the equipment. In the event of respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioner’s representation, he shall pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.8080 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 19th March, 2010 lur