IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10670 of 2010 Between: Dr. R. Nagaraju ..... Petitioner AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science & Technology Department, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G. Rama Gopal Counsel for respondents 1-5: GP for Forests Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri S.R. Sanku Counsel for respondent No.7: Sri N. Krishna Rao The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10670 of 2010 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Memo dated 18.02.2010 of respondent No.1, whereby it has cancelled Memo No.5734/For.1(2)/2002-8, dated 08.10.2004 under which felling and transporting permission in respect of 31 teak trees was granted. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.6 and 7 entered into agreements dated 18.08.1999 and 06.04.2002 with him for sale of 49 teakwood trees from the land belonging to them situated in Sy.No.46 of Jerrela Village and that by proceedings dated 08.10.2004, respondent No.1 has granted permission for felling and transporting the trees to the petitioner’s premises for construction of hospital at Eluru. The disputes that ensued between the parties led to their approaching respondent No.1. While respondent No.6 made a representation requesting respondent No.1 to cancel proceedings dated 08.10.2004, the petitioner requested respondent No.1 to re- confirm its earlier permission. By the impugned order, respondent No.1 has cancelled its earlier order dated 08.10.2004 and the same is assailed in this Writ Petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent Nos.6 and 7, I am of the opinion that unless the petitioner seeks enforcement of his purported agreement of sale against respondent Nos.6 and 7, either existence of felling and transporting permission or its cancellation would be of no consequence because the felling and transporting permission only enables the parties to cut the teakwood trees and transport the same to the intended destination. Even if the petitioner succeeds in the present Writ Petition in getting the earlier permission dated 08.10.2004 granted by respondent No.1 revived, he cannot succeed in forcing respondent Nos.6 and 7 to cut and supply teakwood to him, unless they are willing to accept the petitioner’s request. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it would be an exercise in futility for the petitioner to pursue the present Writ Petition without his approaching the civil Court and obtaining appropriate relief of specific performance of agreement. In this view of the matter, without going into the respective pleas of the petitioner and respondent Nos.6 and 7, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court. If the petitioner succeeds in obtaining a decree for specific performance of agreement against respondent Nos.6 and 7, he shall be free to move respondent No.1 for grant of fresh permission, in which case respondent Nos.6 and 7 cannot resist such an application. In such an event, respondent No.1 shall consider such application without reference to the impugned memo. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.13662 of 2010 and WVMP.No.5609 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.03.2011 ES