IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 11122 of 2009 Between: Sri Tirumala venkata Ramana Saw Mill Addanki, Prakasam District. Rep by its Prop. M.D.Rama Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Forest Officer, Giddaloor, Prakasam District. 2 Forest Range Officer, Ongole District. 3 Conservator of Forests, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the in action of the 3rd respondent herein in passing orders on the appeal filed by petitioner challenging the orders in R.C.No.1397/2003/S-2 dated 06.03.2009 passed by the 1st respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently suspend the order R.C.No.1397/2003/S-2 dated 06.03.2009 passed by the 1st respondent pending appeal before the 1st respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.DHANANJAY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11122 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Forests, who accepted notice for the respondents. The 1st respondent-Divisional Forest Officer by order dated 6.3.2009 while seizing the saw-mill of the petitioner forfeited the security deposit also. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the 3rd respondent-Conservator of Forests on 19.3.2009 itself. Aggrieved by the inaction of the 3rd respondent in considering the petitioner’s Appeal, this writ petition is filed. The petitioner also seeks to suspend the 1st respondent’s order dated 6.3.2009 pending the appeal before the 3rd respondent. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s appeal is pending before the 3rd respondent, though I am not inclined to express any opinion on merits, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner’s appeal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 09.06.2009 Note:- CC by tomorrow. (B/O) mrb