IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.748 OF 2000 Dt.22.12.2009 Between: G. Rajeswara Reddy … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (For.III) Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.748 OF 2000 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for issue of a Certiorari and quash the Memo No.27227/For.III/93-23, dt.29.12.1999 passed by respondent No.1. Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition are stated hereunder. The petitioner is a saw mill licensee. On the basis of an inspection report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, respondent No.4 issued show cause notice dt.10.9.1993 proposing to cancel the saw mill licence and forfeit the disputed stock and machinery. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 02.10.1993. By order dt.04.11.1993, respondent No.4 cancelled the petitioner’s saw mill licence. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Conservator of Forests on 25.11.1993. By his order dt.05.1.1994, the Chief Conservator rejected the application for stay. Against the said rejection order, the petitioner filed a revision before respondent No.1. By order dt.04.2.1994, respondent No.1 granted interim direction permitting the petitioner to run the saw mill pending the revision. On verification, the petitioner came to know that by its order dt.16.10.1995, respondent No.1 vacated the stay order and by a separate order passed on 30.11.1995, respondent No.1 dismissed the purported appeal (revision). The said order dt.30.11.1995 was questioned by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4037 of 1996, which was disposed of by this Court by order dt.09.7.1996 with the direction to respondent No.1 to issue notice to the petitioner and afford him an opportunity before disposing of the revision petition afresh. After remand, respondent No.1 passed interim order dt.14.10.1996 in favour of the petitioner directing release of saw mill equipment to the petitioner and permitting him to operate the Saw Mill. However, by order dt.29.12.1999, respondent No.1 vacated the order dt.14.10.1996 and purported to uphold the order of respondent No.4 while rejecting the appeal (revision). This order is questioned in the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri M.R.K. Choudary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order, whereby respondent No.1 rejected the revision petition while vacating its earlier order, is unsustainable. He contended that no reasons whatsoever have been given by respondent No.1 while dismissing the revision petition. He further submitted that respondent No.1 has travelled beyond its jurisdiction by upholding the order of respondent No.4, cancelling the saw mill licence, which order was in fact the subject matter of appeal before respondent No.2 and that therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned Government Pleader for Forests submitted that though respondent No.2 has entertained the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of respondent No.4, under the relevant Rules, it is only the Conservator of Forests before whom an appeal should have been filed. He further submitted that the appeal record was destroyed by the office of respondent No.2 under the mistaken impression that it pertains to regular files which are liable for destruction on the expiry of ten years and that therefore respondent No.2 is not in a position to dispose of the appeal. As regards the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 vacated the interim order unjustly, the learned Government Pleader submitted that on the basis of the material available on record, including the report submitted by the Forest Officers, respondent No.1 had taken the decision to vacate the earlier interim order and that therefore the said order does not call for interference. He also submitted that as regards the affirmation of the order of respondent No.4, the said aspect was not before respondent No.1. Dealing with the aspect pertaining to pendency of the appeal first, under Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 (for short, “the Rules”), any person who is aggrieved by an order of revocation of a licence is entitled to file an appeal to the Conservator of Forests having jurisdiction. The Rules do not define whether the Conservator of Forests includes the Superior Officers, such as Chief Conservator or Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. Undoubtedly, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is superior to the Conservator of Forests and he does not figure as further appellate or revisional authority under the scheme of the Rules. Therefore, in the absence of any bar on respondent No.2 in entertaining an appeal, there does not appear to be any illegality or irregularity in respondent No.2 entertaining the appeal. At any rate, if respondent No.2 had realized that it is the Conservator of Forests, who should have dealt with the appeal, he should have made over the said appeal to him. I find no justification whatsoever in respondent No.2 not disposing of the appeal either himself or by the Conservator of Forests. It is rather astonishing that the papers pertaining to a statutory appeal were inadvertently destroyed treating them as routine files. The valuable rights of a citizen flowing from a statutory appeal cannot be defeated by such casual approach of the officers. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that his client is in possession of the entire record, which is necessary for disposal of the appeal. The petitioner is permitted to reconstruct the appeal filed and present the same before respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks from today. On receipt of the file, respondent No.2 shall decide whether to hear the appeal himself or make over the same to respondent No.3 for disposal in accordance with law. In either case, the appeal should be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the reconstructed appeal file from the petitioner. The petitioner is also permitted to raise additional grounds, if necessary. Respondent No.2 or respondent No.3, as the case may be, shall consider all the aspects raised by the petitioner and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. With regard to the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner is deprived of running of the saw mill for nearly nine years and therefore he may be permitted to run the saw mill till disposal of the appeal, having regard to the facts of the case, I am not inclined to grant such permission, because, admittedly after the stay order was vacated by the Government under the impugned order, the petitioner is not running the saw mill for the last nine years. As the appeal is pending, I find it appropriate to direct that the appeal shall be disposed of on merits and the entitlement of the petitioner to run the saw mill should depend upon the outcome of the appeal. As regards the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that respondent No.1 has erroneously confirmed the order of respondent No.4, I find force in the submission. The scope of the revision before respondent No.1 was confined to the legality or otherwise of the order passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the application for stay pending appeal before him. Therefore, it was not permissible for respondent No.1 to adjudicate on the legality or otherwise of the order passed by respondent No.4, as the same fell in the domain of the appellate authority in the pending appeal. Hence, the impugned order to the extent that it upheld the order of respondent No.4 cancelling the saw mill licence of the petitioner, is quashed. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part. Respondent No.2/respondent No.3 is directed to dispose of the appeal in the manner indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No.932 of 2000 and W.V.M.P. No.2093 of 2000, filed by the respective parties, are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22.12.2009 bnr