THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 24920 of 2010 Oral order: The petitioner, namely M/s. Jaya Bhavani Saw Mill, represented by its owner filed this writ petition. The petitioner states that on the application dated 31.12.2002 for grant of saw mill licence, respondent No.4, namely the Divisional Forest Officer, Hyderabad, vide proceedings dated 24.02.2003 granted saw mill licence for establishment of saw mill in the name and style of M/s. Jaya Bhavani Saw Mill, and thereafter, it was being renewed on yearly basis. The petitioner states that they are carrying on their saw mill operations according to the Saw Mill Regulations, and while so, respondent No. 4, purportedly in pursuance of the interim orders dated 16.11.2002 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P. No. 202 of 1995, issued notice dated 30.07.2005 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the saw mill licence should not be cancelled. The petitioner states that the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia, had directed that no State Government or Union Territory, shall permit the opening of any saw mill without prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee w.e.f. 16.11.2002 and that there can be no relaxation of Rules without previous concurrence of the Central Empowered Committee. The petitioner states that he has not violated the terms and conditions of the licence. However, without considering the same, respondent No.4 vide orders dated 17.01.2006 cancelled the saw mill licence. The petitioner states that the saw mill licences, numbering 282, which were cancelled on the ground that the previous permission of the Central Empowered Committee, were referred to the Central Empowered Committee, and it is the case of the petitioner that their name stands at Sl. No. 60 in the list, the Central Empowered Committee, cleared only 79 cases, and that pursuant thereto, respondent No.3, namely the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad, issued proceedings dated Nil-12.2009, for renewal of those 79 licences, including the licence of the petitioner. The petitioner states that the respondents are adopting selective and discriminatory approach in entertaining applications for renewal of saw mill licences, in that they are renewing licences that were granted prior to 30.10.2002 and not renewing licences that were granted after the said date. Hence, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions to the respondents Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Forests for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, all of them agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: Respondent No.1, namely the Central Empowered Committee, is directed to consider and dispose of the application, if any, filed by the petitioner for renewal of his licence, in the light of the recommendations made by respondent No.3, namely the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad, vide proceedings dated Nil- 12-2009, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 5th October, 2010 KSR