IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.22913 of 2011 Between: Muduganti Venkat Reddy. … Petitioner And The Forest Range Officer, Special Party, Jagtial, Karimnagar West Division, Karimnagar District and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Forests. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed to set aside proceedings No.4056/2010/S8, dated 9-3-2011, of respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioner’s applications for renewal of Charcoal Depot License. The petitioner is involved in charcoal business having been granted the licence by respondent No.2 under the Andhra Pradesh Charcoal (Production and Transport) Rules, 1992 (for short “the Charcoal Rules”). He is stated to have made an application on 3-4-2010 to respondent No.2 for renewal of his licence upto 31-3-2011. The petitioner pleaded that as respondent No.2 has not responded to the said application, he has filed another application dated 8-6- 2010, wherein he has pleaded that he has collected approximately 11,025 cmt., of prosophis fuel (sarkar thumma) from the patta lands of Kondaipalli and other surrounding villages. The petitioner further pleaded that the said application, addressed to respondent No.2, was filed before respondent No.1, who forwarded the same on 17-6- 2010 to respondent No.2. When the petitioner’s applications were stated to be pending before respondent No.2, respondent No.1 visited the charcoal depot of the petitioner on 5-7-2010 and registered a case in POR No.004641/93 on the allegation that the petitioner has formed 21 charcoal kilns, manufactured 2,28,160 kgs., of charcoal and stored 41 numbers of non-teak hard wood timber (4.397 cmt.,) and 9.60 tons of non-teak fuel in the depot in contravention of the provisions of Sections 20 and 29(b) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 (for short “the Act”) and Rule 3 of the A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970; Rule 2 of A.P. Forest Produce (Storage and Depot) Rules, 1989 and Rules 3(1) and 5(1) of the Charcoal Rules and seized the stocks. Thereafter, as his application for renewal was not disposed of by respondent No.2, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.22145 of 2010, wherein this Court has granted interim order on 21-1-2011 directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s application dated 8-6-2010, which was submitted through respondent No.1 and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks. Respondent No.2 passed order, dated 9-3-2011, rejecting the petitioner’s purported renewal applications on the ground that the latter has violated various provisions of the Act and the Rules referred to above. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. At the hearing, Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced the following submissions: 1) Respondent No.2 committed a gross illegality and impropriety in not disposing of the petitioner’s application, dated 8-6-2010, submitted through proper channel, i.e., respondent No.1, despite the direction given by this Court in WPMP No.28207 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.22145 of 2010; and 2) Respondent No.2 has pre-judged the issue by rendering conclusive findings on the alleged violation of the statutory provisions by the petitioner, while the criminal case is pending. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests sought to support the impugned order by stating that as the petitioner is found to have violated various statutory provisions, as evident from the panchanama, and a criminal case is pending, he is not entitled for renewal of his licence. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the interim order, dated 21-1- 2011, in WPMP No.28207 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.22145 of 2010 would show that this Court has directed respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s application, dated 8-6-2010, submitted through the office of respondent No.1, seeking renewal of his licence and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks. The petitioner filed a copy of the said renewal application, which shows that the same was addressed to respondent No.2 and presented “through proper channel” i.e., respondent No.1, who made an endorsement on the said application as under: “Dy.R.O., KDML, It is requested to inspect the spot and Sy.Nos., wise and enquire the contents of the applicant. Submit detail report within (7) days”. In the impugned order of rejection, respondent No.2 has referred to the purported applications dated 27-1-2011, 14-2-2011 and 8-3-2011 of the petitioner. Interestingly, the petitioner’s application, dated 8-6-2010, has not been referred to in the said order, even though respondent No.2 has mentioned the interim order of this Court in WPMP No.28207 of 2010 in Writ Petition No.22145 of 2010 in the ‘subject’ caption. In the counter-affidavit, respondent No.2 while denying that application, dated 8-6-2010, was made by the petitioner to her, she has, however, stated that such an application was made before respondent No.1 along with demand draft for Rs.100/- for renewal. This stand taken by respondent No.2 in her counter-affidavit cannot be sustained because the petitioner has addressed application, dated 8-6-2010, to respondent No.2, but presented the same before respondent No.1 as he felt that the latter is the proper channel through which the renewal application should be submitted. If such a course is impermissible, respondent No.1 ought to have returned the application to the petitioner for presentation before respondent No.2. Instead, respondent No.1 has made an endorsement by calling for a report. As noted above, this Court has clearly directed respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s application dated 8-6-2010 submitted through respondent No.1. In the face of this peremptory direction it does not lie in the mouth of respondent No.2 to ignore the application presented by the petitioner to respondent No.1. Failure of respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s application, dated 8-6-2010, is thus not only unreasonable but the same is contrary to the direction given by this Court. Coming to the second contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the said application, dated 8-6-2010, filed by his client, he has categorically referred to the source of the timber, which was collected in private lands for its conversion into charcoal; and that had that application been considered by respondent No.2, she would not have jumped to the conclusion that the petitioner has converted the forest timber into charcoal in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In this context it would be relevant to consider the legality and propriety of respondent No.2 in rejecting the petitioner’s renewal application by concluding that he has used the forest timber illegally for making charcoal. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that before coming to such a conclusion, any enquiry was made after putting the petitioner on notice. Admittedly, a criminal case is pending before the competent criminal court on the complaint given by respondent No.1. Till now the culpability of the petitioner is not proved. While the criminal proceedings relating to criminal liability of the petitioner are pending for the purpose of considering the renewal application, the respondents are expected to make proper enquiry after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before recording the finding that he violated the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Admittedly, such a procedure is not followed. The petitioner cannot be condemned unheard and his application for renewal cannot be rejected on the basis of the unilateral finding that he is guilty of violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In the above circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly set aside. In the premises as above, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the petitioner’s application, dated 8-6-2010, submitted through respondent No.1. If respondent No.2 seeks to rely upon the allegation against the petitioner that he has converted the forest produce into charcoal, she shall give a detailed show-cause notice to the petitioner by supplying the material, on the basis of which those allegations are made, and call for explanation from him. On receipt of the explanation, if any, submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and a speaking order shall be passed. Depending upon the conclusion that may be arrived at by respondent No.2 in the order that may be passed by her after completion of enquiry, the petitioner’s application, dated 8-6-2010, for renewal shall be disposed of. This exercise shall be completed by respondent No.2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.28015 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:07-9-2011 MNR