HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.11926 of 2011 Date: 31-10-2011 Between : S. Abdul Gafoor .. Petitioner And The Chief Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Md. Saleem Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : G.P. for Forests Counsel for respondent No.4 : -- Counsel for respondent No.5 : The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not issuing renewal of licence to the petitioner’s saw-mill despite the order passed by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) approving renewal of his saw-mill’s licence along with respondent No.5 and three others in the year 2008, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is granted licence for running a saw-mill in the name of Alla Malik Saw-Mill at Rayachoty, Kadapa District in the year 1975. The said licence was renewed upto 31-12-2002. The petitioner pleaded that he has been making applications for renewal of his licence by enclosing challans towards renewal fees from time to time. According to the petitioner, he has paid Rs.1000/- towards renewal fee, vide challan No.12322 dated 31-12-2002 and Rs.2000/- vide challan No.11613 dated 29-11-2003, for renewal of the saw-mill licence for the years 2003 and 2004. The petitioner has received a show cause notice in the year 2007 from the Forest Range Officer to show cause why his saw-mill shall not be directed to be closed. According to the petitioner, on his approaching, respondent No.3 prepared a list consisting of five saw-mills in Kadapa Division including his, shown at Sl.No.5, while showing the application of respondent No.5 at Sl.No.1 and forwarded the same to respondent No.4 through respondent No.2; that respondent No.4 considered the petitioner’s application for renewal of the saw-mill licence along with the applications of four other saw-mills and sent proceedings dated 2-2-2008 to respondent No.1 and that instead of showing the petitioner’s saw-mill at Sl.No.5, mistakenly, the saw-mill of respondent No.5 was shown both at Sl.Nos.1 and 5. The petitioner approached respondent No.3 and correspondence between respondent Nos.1 to 3 ensued in this regard. As nothing materialized thereafter, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.3 wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioner’s saw-mill licence was renewed upto 31-12-2002; that the petitioner has remitted an amount of Rs.1000/- vide challan No.11613, dated 29-11-2003 towards licence fees for renewal and submitted his application to the Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty and executed an agreement with the owner of the site for shifting of the saw-mill from the existing place to a new place and that the Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty submitted his report to respondent No.3 on 12-9-2005 stating that the petitioner has not operated the saw-mill due to non-renewal of licence for the years 2003 and 2004 and that permission may be granted for shifting the saw-mill to the new place after renewing the licence. It is further stated that in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, the licence could not be renewed without obtaining permission from the CEC. It is further stated that as per the instructions of respondent No.1, proposals were submitted for renewal of the saw-mill licences in cases of five saw mills where they have lapsed vide office proceedings dated 6-6-2007 and the petitioner’s was one among them. Respondent No.3, in his proceedings dated 28-5-2011 has clarified that the then Divisional Forest Officer has stated that the saw-mill was dismantled and kept in the owner’s son’s house and requested for renewal; that as the saw-mill was dismantled and kept away from the sanctioned place, the petitioner’s saw-mill was not included in the list placed before the State Level Committee (SLC) and that therefore the assumption of the petitioner that his case was recommended to the CEC for renewal is incorrect. It is further stated that the CEC have conveyed their approval for renewal of lapsed saw-mill licences vide its proceedings dated 16-1-2008; that the petitioner’s saw-mill is not included therein and that by mistake the name of respondent No.5 is repeated twice. At the hearing, Sri B.N.N. Murthy, who is working as the Divisional Forest Officer, Kadapa is personally present. He has also produced the relevant record, a perusal of which would show that the petitioner’s name is not included either by the SLC in its list forwarded to the CEC or in the list approved by the CEC. In both the lists, the name of respondent No.5 is repeated twice at Sl.Nos.1 and 5. Therefore, the premise on which the Writ Petition is filed, namely, that the CEC has approved the renewal of the petitioner’s saw-mill licence, is incorrect. Sri Md. Saleem, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that a perusal of the CEC proceedings dated 16-1-2008 shows that licences, even in cases where the units existed on ground prior to 30-10-2002, were renewed, and that the ground, namely, that the petitioner has dismantled the machinery in the year 2007 and therefore his case was not recommended for renewal, cannot be sustained. This issue has not been raised in the Writ Petition and the same has arisen incidentally after the proceedings of the CEC have been placed before this Court. The fact remains that the petitioner’s case was not recommended by the SLC even though his name was forwarded by the Divisional Forest Officer in the first instance. Therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioner, on the premise that the CEC has approved his name for renewal of the saw-mill, cannot be granted in this Writ Petition. Learned Government Pleader for Forests submitted that the licences can be renewed by the Divisional Forest Officer only if the application for renewal is filed within the prescribed time before the expiry of the licence period and that the petitioner has not filed the application within the time. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly denied this submission and stated that the petitioner has filed the application for renewal of the licence for the year 2003 prior to expiry of the licence which was valid up to 31.12.2002. This being a disputed question of fact, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate the same at this stage while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is permitted to approach respondent No.3 with a representation along with the material to substantiate his plea that he has applied for renewal within the stipulated time. If such a representation is made along with the material in support thereof, respondent No.3 shall consider the same and take appropriate action with reasonable dispatch. If respondent No.3, on the basis of the material placed before him, is satisfied that the petitioner has applied for renewal within the prescribed time by paying the prescribed fees, he shall pass an order on merits and communicate the same to him within a period of one month from the date of his making such representation. If respondent No.3 comes to a converse conclusion and if he feels that the petitioner’s case needs to be considered by the CEC, he shall take appropriate steps in this regard and communicate the decision to the petitioner within the above stipulated time. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP No.14585/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date: 31-10-2011 AM