HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.1294 of 2011 Date : 11-2-2011 Between : M/s.Sri Srinivasa Wood Works, Represented by its owner Smt.Ch.Laxmi .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (For.III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Smt.Deepti Counsel for respondents : A.G.P. for Forests The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside order in Rc.No.5548/2020-V4, dated 7-1-2011 of respondent No.4. I have heard Smt.Deepthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests. Though the case was adjourned on 28-2-2011 to enable the respondents to file a counter affidavit, no counter affidavit is filed. The petitioner is a licensee for running a saw-mill. In view of the road widening process undertaken by the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation on the road on which the petitioner’s saw-mill is located, the petitioner was constrained to make an application for permission to shift the saw-mill in order to relocate the same. In the petitioner’s application, it sought for permission to shift the saw mill to Door No.76-13-92/11/3, R.S.No.39/3, 3A., Gollapudi Bye- pass road where other saw mills are stated to be in existence and operating. By the impugned proceedings, respondent No.4 has rejected the said application. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the only ground of rejection is that no relocation of saw mills shall be permitted from outside of 5 K.Ms. radius of the forest area to an area within 5 K.Ms. of such forest area. Respondent No.4, however, in the impugned order stated that the petitioner’s saw mill is presently situated within 5 K.Ms. radius from Indrakeeladri protected forest and that the proposed saw-mill is also within 5 K.Ms. radius from the said protected forest. In my opinion, the ground of rejection for shifting, purportedly on the prohibition contained in G.O.Ms.No.91, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (For.III) Department, dated 11-7-2006, on the facts of the present case, is wholly unsustainable. As noted above, the said G.O. prohibits shifting of a saw mill from outside of 5 K.Ms. radius to within the said radius of forest area. This necessarily means that if a saw mill is already located within 5 K.Ms. radius of the forest area, there is no prohibition on its shifting to some other location within the same radius. On the own showing of respondent No.4, the petitioner’s saw mill is situated within 5 K.Ms. radius of Indrakeeladri protected forest and the petitioner is seeking to shift his saw mill to another place within the same radius on the ground that shifting has become inevitable in view of road widening. I am therefore of the opinion that the prohibition contained in G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 11-7-2006, on the basis of which the impugned rejection is made has no application to the petitioner’s case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside. Respondent No.4 is directed to permit the petitioner to shift the saw mill to the proposed place within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 11-2-2011 AM