THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.10063 OF 2010 Dated 2nd August, 2010 Between: B.Dhananjaya …Petitioner And The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Five others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.A.Narasimham Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: G.P for Forests Counsel for respondents 5 and 6: Sri Y.Sudhakar The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not considering petitioner’s applications dated 11.07.2008 and 20.01.2010 submitted by the petitioner for transferring licence of M/s Nagamani Sawmill (for short “the sawmill”), Gondupalem Village, K.Kotapadu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in his favour in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Saw Mill (Regulation) Rules, 1969 and G.O.Ms.Nos.99 and 91 dated 17.07.1998 and 11.07.2006 respectively as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the said representations for transfer of licence. I have heard Sri K.A.Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Y.Sudhakar, learned counsel representing respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner claims to be in the management of the above sawmill since the year 2000. Respondent No.5 is the original licensee. The licence of the sawmill was granted on 27.03.1999 for the period ending 31.12.2001 and the same was renewed up to the year 2008. The petitioner made an application on 11.07.2008 seeking transfer of the licence in his favour. While the said application was pending, respondent No.5 made a request to respondent No.2 to permit him to shift the sawmill and also to renew the sawmill licence. As no orders have been passed on the petitioner’s request for transfer, he filed the present writ petition. Detailed counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and also on behalf of respondents 5 and 6. For the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, it is not necessary to advert to all those averments. According to the petitioner, respondent No.5, the original licensee, executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No.6 on 19.11.1999 while the father of respondent No.6 executed an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner on 07.11.2000. It is the further plea of the petitioner that in pursuance of the said agreement of sale, the total sale consideration for the entire machinery was paid to the father of respondent No.6 and possession was delivered to him, in pursuance of which he is in management of the sawmill. The learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 denied the pleas raised by the petitioner and submitted that even according to the document submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.5 sold the sawmill to respondent No.6 and respondent No.6 has never executed any agreement or sale deed in favour of the petitioner and therefore, even assuming that the agreement of sale entered into by the father of respondent No.6 is correct, no right or interest is created in the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader submitted that on receipt of the petitioner’s applications for transfer, respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner to produce no objection certificate from the licensee and that as he failed to produce the no objection certificate, no order could be passed in his favour. The facts noted above would clearly disclose that there is a dispute relating to the right of the petitioner over the sawmill in question. Respondents 5 and 6 have made their stand clear in denying any right in the petitioner. In my opinion, respondent No.2 ought to have called for objections from the original licensee i.e., respondent No.5 for considering the transfer of licence in favour of the petitioner before the period of licence has expired once the petitioner failed to produce the no objection certificate. With the expiry of the licence as far back as December, 2008, unless the sawmill’s licence is either renewed or a fresh licence in accordance with the statutory provisions is granted, the petitioner’s application for transfer of licence cannot be considered. In this set of facts, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms. (1) Within four (4) weeks from today, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh application for grant of a fresh licence. (2) One of the respondents between respondents 5 and 6 is also permitted to make such application. (3) Respondent No.2 shall consider both these applications and on the strength of the material produced by the respective applicants, he shall take a decision as to whether a fresh licence can be granted in accordance with the statutory provisions and if so, in whose favour it should be granted. (4) If respondent No.2 comes to the conclusion that the disputes raised by the respective applicants require adjudication by the civil Court, he shall be free to relegate the parties to the civil Court and (5) respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the parties within one month of his receiving the applications from the petitioner and respondent No.5 or 6. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.12920 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 2nd August, 2010 vrn