THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.27716 of 2011 Dated 11th October, 2011 Between: M/s.Sri Madhusudana Timber Depot & Saw Mill …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (FOR.III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.Ravichandran Counsel for respondents: AGP for Forests The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order in Ref.No.2583/2011-V4, dated 15.09.2011, of respondent No.4, whereby he has rejected the petitioner’s application for shifting of the existing sawmill to another place on the ground that the same is prohibited by G.O.Ms.No.91, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (For.III) Department, dated 11.07.2006. The petitioner has averred that it is running a timber depot and sawmill at KT Road, Vijayawada within 5 km radius of Indrakeeladri protected forest. In view of the proposed road widening, the petitioner is compelled to shift the existing sawmill to another place. The place on which the sawmill is presently in existence is situated within 0.50 km radius from Indrakeeladri protected forest. The petitioner’s application for shifting of the sawmill to another place is rejected on the ground that the proposed site is situated within 4.75 km radius from Indrakeeladri Protected Forest. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 11.07.2006, merely prohibits shifting of a sawmill from outside 5 km radius from the forest area to within 5 km of forest area and that the prohibition contained therein will not apply to the case of the petitioner, as the existing sawmill is admittedly situated within 5 km radius of Indrakeeladri protected forest. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited this Court’s attention to the impugned order, wherein it is clearly admitted that the existing sawmill is well within 5 km. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the order, dated 11.02.2011, in W.P.No.1294 of 2011, wherein similar case was considered and the rejection order passed therein was set aside. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests fairly conceded that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order, dated 11.02.2011, in W.P.No.1294 of 2011. This Court in the said order while dealing with an identical situation held as under: 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. The extant case is in all respects identical to the case decided by this Court in the above-noted writ petition. Therefore, it necessarily follows that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly quashed. Respondent No.4 is directed to permit the petitioner to shift the sawmill to the proposed place within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34192 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th October, 2011 Note: Issue CC in five days. (b/o) VGB