IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26966 of 2009 Between: Smt.T.Usha ..... Petitioner AND 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl.Secrtary, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs.A.Deepthi Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Forests The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, more particularly respondent No.4, in not permitting the petitioner to run the sawmill, as illegal and void. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to renew her sawmill license as per the provisions of the A.P.Saw Mill (Regulation) Rules, 1969. I have heard Mrs.A.Deepthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Forests representing the respondents. The controversy in this Writ Petition centers around the question whether the petitioner made the application for renewal of her sawmill license within the prescribed time or not. At the hearing, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Forests that the petitioner’s saw mill license expired in the year 2003 and that renewal applications were not filed in time and therefore, the license has not been renewed. Mrs.A.Deepthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, controverted this submission and contended that as evident from various challans, copies of which are filed by the petitioner, renewal applications have been made within time, but the respondents have not disposed of the same. Having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the renewal applications, said to have been filed by the petitioner along with payment of renewal fees, after issuing notice to the petitioner and hearing her or her representative in person. If during the hearing, the petitioner is able to show that she has filed the renewal applications along with payment of renewal fees within the time, respondent No.2 shall permit her to run the sawmill till disposal of her renewal applications. On the other hand, if respondent No.2 is dissatisfied with the plea of the petitioner, he shall pass an appropriate order within a period of three weeks and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till disposal of such proceedings by respondent No.2, the petitioner shall be entitled to run the sawmill. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 10-12-2009, as extended by orders, dated 31-12-2009 and 02-02-2010, is vacated and WPMP.No.35124 of 2009, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 18th March, 2010 lur