THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.22569 of 2011 Dated 10th August, 2011 Between: Sri Vamsikrishna Saw Mill and Timber Depot …Petitioner And Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ghanta Rama Rao Counsel for respondents: AGP for Forests The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in sealing and seizing the machinery on 23.07.2011 without notice and opportunity to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a sawmill, which was inspected by the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad Central Range, Hyderabad and his team on 22.07.2011. On the ground that the petitioner failed to show proper bills for three teak logs, the respondents seized the material and also the sawmill, while issuing the show-cause notice, dated 01.08.2011, to explain why the licence of the sawmill shall not be cancelled besides confiscating the seized timber. In my opinion, while respondent No.2 is justified in issuing the show-cause notice, he ought not to have resorted to the extreme act of seizing the sawmill without a prior notice and an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as the seizure of the sawmill leads to serious adverse consequences to the petitioner. This view of mine is supported by the judgment of this Court in Khaja Raheemuddin v. Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar and others[1]. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings to the extent of seizure of the sawmill only. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the explanation stated to have been filed by the petitioner in response to the impugned show-cause notice, pass an appropriate order, after hearing the petitioner’s representative in-person and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.27574 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th August, 2011 Note: Communicate the operative portion of the order by wire at party’s costs. (b/o) VGB [1] 2006 (1) ALD 844