IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11671 of 2004 Between: Boddu Modi Naidu, S/o. Jogi Naidu, Cheedikada Village & Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Forest Officer, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Range Officer, Forest Department, Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam. ....RESPONDENTS 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 rule nisi calling for the records leading upto and inclusive of the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Rc.No.2477/94-T dt. 20-12-2002 and quash the same by issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI E.V.BHAGIRATHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11671 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner obtained licence under the Andhra Pradesh Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 (the Rules, for brevity), on 10.12.1987 for running a saw mill in the name and style of M/s.Modamamba Saw Mill at Cheedikada Village, Visakhapatnam District. The licence was renewed from time to time up to 31.12.1999. Petitioner alleges that he was sick from January to March 2000 and he could not apply for renewal. On 27.04.2000 he paid the requisite fee by way of challan and submitted application for renewal of saw mill licence. The same was rejected on 20.12.2002 informing that petitioner should apply for fresh licence. Assailing the said order, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner contends that he could not apply for renewal of licence due to sickness and there is no negligence on his part, and therefore, the impugned action is arbitrary. As per Rule 4 of the Rules, any person desiring to install, erect or operate saw mill shall have to obtain a licence in Form-I. The licensing authority after satisfying himself that there is no objection for grant of licence can grant licence in Form-II valid either for a period of one year, two years or three years. Rule 6 of the Rules contains the procedure for renewal of licence. The same reads as under. 6.(1) The licensee should submit renewal application within one month prior to expiry of existing licence. (2) If no renewal application is submitted to the licensing authority upto 1st December, a late fee of Rs.250/- shall be levied upto February succeeding year, irrespective of duration of delay, if renewal application is not submitted before the end of February it will be deemed that the licence has lapse and the saw mill owner should apply for fresh licence. The security deposit available with the licensing authority shall stand forfeited. (3) When renewal application is made, the licence holder should furnish the timber accounts in the format prescribed in these rules for the entire licence period and if the accounts are not furnished, the renewal application shall not be considered by licensing authority. (4) When renewal application is submitted to licensing authority, and till renewed licence is received, the acknowledgement given by the licensing authority shall be treated as licence by inspecting officers. The licensee is required to submit application within one month prior to expiry of existing licence. If such renewal application could not be submitted, it can be submitted with a late fee of Rs.250/- before the end of February. Even then if no application is submitted for renewal, licence would lapse and the security deposit available with the licensing authority shall stand forfeited. In view of the clear Rule, the impugned order cannot be faulted. Furthermore, even according to the petitioner, his licence expired on 31.12.1999 and he did not apply for renewal immediately before one month or before February. He sent application on 27.04.2000, which is certainly barred under Rule 6(2) of the Rules. Therefore, the petitioner, if so advised, can make a fresh application, in which event, that has to be considered in accordance with the Rules in force including Rule 3 of the Rules, which prohibits grant of saw mill licence within a distance of 5 Kms from the boundary of forest. The Writ Petition for the above reasons cannot be accepted, and is therefore, dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 05.11.2008 vs To 1 The Divisional Forest Officer, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Range Officer, Forest Department, Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam. 3 2CCs to G.P for Forests, High Court of A.P, Hyderbad. 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}