THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24008 of 2011 Date: 10.10.2011 Between: Vadla Bramhaiha Achari ..... Petitioner AND The Government of A.P., Reptd., by its Principal Chief Conservator, Hyderabad And three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Forests The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the seizure of the petitioner’s saw mill by respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner averred that he has established a saw mill over an extent of Ac.0.17 cents in Survey No.242/2B of Veldurthi Village and Mandal, Kurnool District; that he made an application in Form No.I under Rule-4 of the Andhra Pradesh Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the Rules’) for grant of license for installation and running of saw mill; that respondent No.3 vide his letter, dated 11.07.2003, instructed respondent No.4 to inspect the site where the saw mill is proposed to be established and that, in turn, respondent No.4 has inspected the proposed site and submitted his report, dated 20.05.2003, recommending for issuance of license. The petitioner specifically pleaded that even though respondent No.4 has made recommendation for grant of saw mill license, no order has been passed by respondent No.3 and that, accordingly, as per the deeming Clause contained in Rule 4 of the Rules, he is deemed to have been granted license and has been accordingly running the saw mill. On 28.02.2011, respondent No.4 has seized the saw mill on the ground that the same is being run without license. Respondent No.3 has filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioner’s application for grant of saw mill license was received by his office on 08.07.2003 and that the same was rejected by respondent No.3 on 11.11.2003. Respondent No.3 has enclosed the proceedings by which he has rejected the petitioner’s application for grant of license. Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client is not aware of the rejection order and that the purported proceedings do not specifically contain the name of the officer who rejected the petitioner’s application. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests representing the respondents stated that the rejection order clearly shows that it was passed by respondent No.3 i.e., Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool Division, and that the same was despatched to the petitioner on 18.12.2003. This Writ Petition is filed on the premise that the petitioner’s application for grant of saw mill license has not been disposed of and that thereby, deeming provision as adumbrated in Rule 4 of the Rules comes into play and that therefore, the seizure of the petitioner’s saw mill on the ground of absence of license is illegal. However, respondent No.3 has come out with the specific plea that the petitioner’s application was rejected as far back as 11.11.2003. Whether this plea is correct or not cannot be adjudicated in the present Writ Petition as the basis for the petitioner for filing this Writ Petition is that his application was pending when the seizure of his saw mill was made. In this view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to question the order, dated 11.11.2003, if he is aggrieved thereby. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.29442 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th October 2011 DR