IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8011 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Misbahuddin, S/o. Md. Badruddin, LICENSEE AND PROPRIETOR OF SOHAIL SAW MILL, Rahamathnagar, Bodhan Road, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad. 2. The Forest Range Officer, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad 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 any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to issue Transit permits to the Petitioner as per the provisions of A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules 1970 for running the Saw Mill business by Sohail Saw Mill as long as license granted by the 1st Respondent is valid and in force by duly declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in withholding the transit permits for conducting the Saw Mill business even though the licence granted to the Petitioner is neither suspended nor canceled on the ground that some offence was registered in POR No. 9/68 in connection with seizure of a lorry near Kamareddy on 20-3-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and unsustainable in the eye of law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.8011 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner has been granted a license to establish a Saw Mill and Timber Depot in Plot No.2470, Bodhan Road, Nizamabad, in accordance with the A.P. Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules 1969. The license is subsisting up to 31-12-2008, however, when a forest offence has been detected on 20-03-2008, the Department had carried out preliminary investigation, which revealed the participation of the writ petitioner in the said offence, according to the departmental officials. Therefore, a show cause notice has been issued on 27-03-2008 calling upon the petitioner to show cause within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice as to why suitable action should not be taken against his Saw Mill in terms of Rule 9(2) of the A.P. Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules 1969. This show cause notice, according to the petitioner, was received on 29-03-2008 and he is trying to file his detailed response thereto before 28-04-2008. However, in the mean time, with a view to carry on his trade and business, he, seemed to have, filed an application on 29-03-2008 before the Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad requesting for issuance of transit permits. It is the assertion of the writ petitioner that in view of the show cause notice dated 27-03-2008 issued, no orders are passed on his application seeking transit permits and he has also not been granted any transit permits. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that so long as the valid license is subsisting, the writ petitioner is entitled to be granted transit permits and the same cannot be withheld. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Forests and with her consent the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The learned Government Pleader for Forests has pointed out that Rule 5(1) of the A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rule, 1970 does not permit to withhold the transit permits from being granted. However, a perusal of the same would instantaneously disclose that the said provision will have application where there is doubt with regard to the ownership of the forest produce and where there is no such doubt with regard to the ownership of the forest produce, Rule – 5 of the said Rules, cannot be invoked and hence, the claim of the petitioner for grant of transit permits for transportation of the forest produce from out of his Saw Mill has got to be entertained and appropriate orders are liable to be passed thereon. It is one thing to say that there is an enquiry initiated against the petitioner, which necessitated the respondents to issue the show cause notice dated 27-03-2008 and it is altogether a different matter to consider his application for grant of transitory permits in the interregnum. Till such time the action is finalized in terms of the show cause notice dated 27-03-2008, no final opinion in the matter could have been formed by the respondent – forest departmental officials about the guilt of the petitioner. Even otherwise, depending upon the cause shown by the writ petitioner, action, considered appropriate, will be taken, which may include any other action, not necessarily resulting in either cancellation or suspension of the license of the petitioner. In such an event, there could not have been any objection, whatsoever, for granting transitory permits. Therefore, any further delay or denial of granting transit permits pending finalization of the action in response to the show cause notice dated 27-03-2008, would amount to prejudging the guilt of the petitioner and on that score penalizing him. In view of what has been stated above, the respondents are directed to entertain and process the application of the petitioner for grant of transit permits till such time the action is finalized in terms of show cause notice dated 27-03-2008. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Note: Issue copy in two days. (bo) mrk 15th April 2008 ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}