IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2782 of 2009 Between: 1 Protru Nageshwar Rao Timber Merchants and Saw Mills, Door No. 6-224, 6-231/A, 6-231/B, Chilkaluripet Rep by its Proprietor Mr. Potru Nagaeshwar Rao 2 Protru Nageshwar Rao, PNR Timber Traders Door No. 6-149/96 & 97, Near Bhasker Theatre, Chilkalaripet 3 PNR Timber Traders Door No. 7-208, Chilkalaripet Rep by its Managing Partner ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Divisional Forest Officer, Guntur. 2 The Asst. Conservator of Forest, Macherla, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in seizing the licensed premises of the petitioners on 14-1- 2009 and in not permitting to do business of running timber depot and saw mills as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of A.P. Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969, the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, A.P. Forest Produce (Storate & Depot) Rules, 1989 violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the constitution of India, contrary to the judgement of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2006 (1) ALD 844 and consequently set-a-side the same. Counsel for the Petitioners :MR.C.V.R.RUDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : ORDER: The first petitioner is a Propriety concern. It is running four Saw-Mills and one Timber Depot at Chilkaluripet. The Divisional Forest Officer, Guntur, the first respondent, caused inspection of the saw-mills and timber depot on 14.01.2009, and on finding certain irregularities, a notice dated 04.02.2009, was issued. The petitioners state that though no specific irregularities were found, the respondents have not only seized the timber depot, but also have prevented the petitioners from running the saw-mills. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Forests. While the petitioners assert that the saw-mills and timber depot were sealed, the respondents state that no seizure, as such, was effected, but the petitioners were prevented from running saw-mills for non-production of the licences. It is also stated that the relevant registers were not produced for verification. In view of these facts, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that, as and when the petitioners submit the necessary licences for the four saw-mills and timber depot, together with the records that are to be maintained by them, the respondents shall permit the petitioners to run the saw-mills as well as the timber depot. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.20.02.2009. GJ