IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14294 of 2009 Between: M/s. Rose Flower Saw Mill Karimnagar District. … Petitioner And Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar (West), Karimnagar & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Venu Madhav Counsel for respondents 1&2: GP for Forests Counsel for respondents 3-6: Sri S. Sudarshan This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14294 of 2009 ORDER:- The petitioner, who is running a saw mill, filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by proceedings dated 08.07.2009 termed as notice issued by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner was directed to apply for shifting of saw mill with a further direction not to run the same at the existing or new place till permission is granted. The impugned proceedings were issued in purported compliance of order dated 01.05.2009 in Writ Petition No.9506 of 2009 filed by the impleaded respondents. Without expressing any opinion on the legality or otherwise of the permission granted in favour of the petitioner to establish saw mill, the said writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the official respondents herein to examine the representations of the petitioners therein (impleaded respondents herein) and take necessary steps in accordance with law after issuing notice to the affected parties. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though the impugned proceedings are described as notice, an unilateral direction has been given directing the petitioner to apply for shifting the saw mill and not to run the same at the existing place. According to the petitioner, the said proceedings were not preceded by a notice and an opportunity of hearing, as directed by this Court in the previous writ petition. At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Forests did not dispute the fact that no notice was given prior to issuing the impugned proceedings. Respondent No.1 has not followed the direction given by this Court by failing to issue prior notice to the petitioner before issuing the impugned proceedings. In this view of the matter, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to issue fresh proceedings by issuing a show cause notice within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order calling for explanation from the petitioner and after considering the same along with the objections of the impleaded respondents, he can pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.18737 of 2009 and WVMP.No.3822 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.04.2010 ES