THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.19705 of 2010 Dated 26th September, 2011 Between: M/s.Mahaboob Subhani Sawmill …Petitioner And The Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool Division, Kurnool and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: --- 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 insisting on the petitioner not to operate the horizontal saw in his sawmill as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests and perused the record. The petitioner pleaded that he established a sawmill in the year 2000 under the name and style of M/s.Mahaboob Subhani Sawmill, that the licence initially granted was renewed from time to time and that the renewal last made is upto 31.12.2012. The petitioner further pleaded that at the time of establishing the sawmill, he is permitted to install and run one horizontal band saw and one vertical saw to cut the timber. It is the further case of the petitioner that while renewing the sawmill licence by respondent No.1 for three years for the years 2010 to 2012, he is permitted to run the sawmill with one vertical saw and the respondents have been insisting that he cannot run the sawmill with horizontal saw. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.2, the Forest Range Officer, Adoni Range, Kurnool Division, wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioner’s sawmill licence granted in the year 2000 and renewed in the year 2001 has lapsed, as he has not paid the renewal fee for the year 2002, that on the fresh application submitted by the petitioner on 15.09.2003, the Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool issued fresh licence on 03.11.2003, which was renewed upto 2005 and that the Supreme Court has passed order in I.A.No.202 of 1995 directing the State Governments and the Union Territories to close down all the unlicenced sawmills existing on that date and they shall not permit opening of fresh sawmills without the permission of the Central Empowered Committee after 30.10.2002. It is averred that as the petitioner’s sawmill licence has lapsed on 28.02.2002 and a fresh licence was granted on 15.09.2003, his case fell within the cut off date. In spite of the same, the sawmill licence was granted on 03.11.2003, as there was delay in receipt of the order of the Supreme Court. The counter affidavit further stated that the Divisional Forest Officer, Kurnool inspected the petitioner’s sawmill on 11.07.2006 and noted the machinery and horse power available in the premises and that according to his inspection, one vertical machine with 10 horse power motor is available and even the petitioner in his application mentioned only one vertical saw with 10 horse power motor and therefore, his case was referred to the Central Empowered Committee, which sanctioned renewal of the petitioner’s sawmill licence, in pursuance of which, the renewal was made for the years 2010 to 2012 with one vertical saw with 10 horse power motor. The counter affidavit denied the allegation of the petitioner that without horizontal saw, a sawmill cannot be run. In support of the averment that he was permitted to operate horizontal saw all through, the petitioner has filed the copies of the renewal orders for the years 2005 to 2009, which clearly show that the petitioner was granted permission for running the sawmill with one vertical saw and one horizontal saw. Regrettably, the respondents have not dealt with this aspect in the counter affidavit. They have not filed the order of the Central Empowered Committee, which disabled the Court to decipher the reason, if any, for not permitting the petitioner to run the sawmill with horizontal saw. As the licence originally granted and the renewal subsequently made has permitted the petitioner to install horizontal saw and run the sawmill, unless strong reasons exist to deny such facility, there can be no justification to exclude the horizontal saw from the licence. Such an action constitutes arbitrariness. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 3 are directed to consider the petitioner’s application for inclusion of horizontal saw in the licence afresh and if necessary, they shall place the matter before the Central Empowered Committee for its clearance in this regard. They shall undertake and complete this exercise within a period three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.24975 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th September, 2011 VGB