THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU WRIT PETITION NO.11158 OF 2006 8th July, 2010 BETWEEN: KAKATIYA SAW MILL .. PETITIONER AND THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTHAGUDEM, KHAMMAM DISTRICT AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU WRIT PETITION NO.11158 OF 2006 O R D E R: Petitioner’s father Sri.K.Bhagwan Reddy, a licensee of a saw mill captioned “M/s.Kakatiya Saw Mill” although expired in February, 2006, yet saw mill remained functional until a direction by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem (for short DFO) vide Rc.No.5361/01/S2, dated 6.5.2006 to stop its operation, founded on the inspection report of the Chief Conservator of Forests (Vigilance) Hyderabad, revealing misuse of Form-II permits No.707935 dated 17.3.2006 and No.707937, dated 22.3.2006, but order of prevention by the DFO did not last long because of the interim stay granted by the writ court on 9.6.2006 in the writ petition on hand, resultantly the saw mill is operational and the interim direction is sought to be sustained by the learned counsel for the petitioner by a final judgment on the ground that the provisions of “The Andhra Pradesh Saw Mills and Regulations Rules, 1969” (for brevity Rules) do not invest the DFO with the power to stop the operation of a saw mill. The learned counsel for the respondents has chosen to urge nothing in opposition to the contention, but submitted that the petitioner has no licence to his credit therefore he has no right to maintain the writ petition. Contention of the opposite side needs to be appreciated in light of the mandate of sub- section (1) of section 3 of Rules, which reads; “ No person shall install, erect or operate a Saw Mill for cutting, converting or sawing of timber without obtaining a licence for such installation from the Licensing Authority.” A bare perusal of the section makes it very clear that a saw mill cannot be installed, erected or operated without a licence which was admittedly not obtained by the petitioner. Apparently in absence of licence the legal heirs of the original licensee have no right whatsoever to operate the saw mill. Being impermissible in law to operate a saw mill without licence it becomes obligatory upon the statutory authorities to take the requisite measures to prevent operation of the saw mill operated without a licence, obviously no fault can be found with the action taken. Situated thus, writ petition fails and is dismissed. NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 8TH July, 2010. NAGESH BABU THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU WRIT PETITION NO.11158 OF 2006 8TH July, 2010 Having held that the petitioner has no right to operate the saw mill in the absence of a license, finding of availability of power of the DFO or otherwise in stopping the operation of the saw mill is totally insignificant for the purpose of this case because nobody can install, erect or operate a saw mill without obtaining a license. Before parting with it needs to be placed on record that it was within the knowledge of the Forest Department that the petitioner had not obtained any license, yet no action was initiated against the petitioner. Notwithstanding the fact that interim stay by the court in no way restrains them from initiating action against the petitioner for operation of the mill without license. I refrain from expression of opinion in respect of this stunning state of affairs, nevertheless it shall be for the government to examine and find out whether any action is called for. To achieve the objective let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State. Needless to say that in case action is initiated it shall have to be by due adherence to the procedure established by law.