IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.15287 of 2000 Dated: June 20, 2007 Between: Sri Amballa amesh, S/o. Sri Limbadri, Aged 27 years, R/o.4-1-86/2, near S.B.H., Balaji Road, Korutla, Karimnagar District. … Petitioner And Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar Karimnagar West, Karimnagar, and another. … Respondents Order: Petitioner, who was granted license to run a sawmill under the provisions of the A.P. Saw Mill Regulations, 1969 (for short ‘the Regulations’) has filed this Writ Petition questioning the order dated 24-01-2000 passed by the first respondent, Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar canceling the said license, confiscating the seized timber and forfeiting the security deposit, as confirmed by the order dated 06-04-2000 passed by the second respondent, Conservator of Forests, Warangal. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that, petitioner was initially granted license to run sawmill at Korutla, Karimnagar District, in the name and style of ‘Sri Venkateswhara Sawmill and Timber Depot. However, subsequently, on his application, first respondent, by proceedings dated 25-11-1998, granted permission to shift his sawmill from Korutla to Kathlapur of the same district. While things stood thus, the Sub-divisional Forest Officer, Jagtial along with Forest Range Officer, Raikal made an inspection in the sawmill of the petitioner on the intervening night of 22/23-10-1999, and found some timber which was not having transit marks and which was cut into rough teak sizes, valued at Rs.15,184/. Accordingly, the said timber was seized under cover of Panchanama and based on the same, show cause notice dated 01-11-1999 was issued to the petitioner by the first respondent alleging that the petitioner is converting illicit teak timber into saw sizes and the same amounts to violating Rules 7(3) and 7(5) of the Regulations. It is stated that petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 12-11-1999 to the said show cause notice. It was the case of the petitioner that the material, which was seized, was very old pertaining to his old sawmill and he transported the same along with his sawmill equipment at the time of shifting his earlier sawmill from Kortula to Kathlapur and the same is lying in the premises. He also pleaded that he was converting the timber into cut sizes for his personal use. Later, the Divisional Forest Officer also called for a report from the Sub-divisional Forest Officer, Jagtial who has reported that the timber involved in the case was more than ten years old. However, the primary authority, i.e. the Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar, passed the order dated 24-01- 2000 cancelling the license of the petitioner stating that enquiry conducted in the matter revealed that petitioner has committed an offence involving sawmill and also ordered confiscation of the timber seized and forfeited the entire security deposit. Though he referred to the explanation filed by the petitioner, however, he did not record any finding on the said explanation offered, in his order dated 24-01-2000. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 24-01-2000, petitioner preferred appeal before the Conservator of Forests, Warangal. The appellate authority, i.e. the Conservator of Forests, has confirmed the order of the primary authority totally on a different ground altogether, namely, that the petitioner was operating the sawmill in the night contrary to the license conditions. He also recorded a finding that the petitioner has not obtained permission for transportation of wood from his old sawmill at Kortula to the present sawmill at Kathlapur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders have been passed canceling the license of the petitioner without considering the explanation filed by him. He submits that though the report of the Sub-divisional Forest Officer, Jagtial supports the plea of the petitioner, in spite of the same, orders were issued canceling the license. He further submits that even the appellate authority has not considered the appeal of the petitioner in proper perspective and simply confirmed the order of the appellate authority on a different ground that was not raised in the show cause notice. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Forests, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the timber was seized as it did not contain any transit marks and the license of the petitioner was cancelled as he had violated the Regulations. He further submits that as the appellate authority has also confirmed the order of the primary authority, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders. 6. I have perused a copy of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, the report sent by the Sub-divisional Forest Officer, Jagtial and also the orders under challenge. 7. Mainly, proceedings for cancellation of the sawmill license of the petitioner were initiated on the ground that, during inspection, some timber, which was purchased by the petitioner unauthorizedly at cheaper rate and which had no valid permit, was seized. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he had filed an explanation stating that it was his own timber and the same was brought from his earlier sawmill at Korutla while shifting his sawmill from the said place to Kathlapur, with the permission of the first respondent. It is also stated that the said timber was not being utilized in the sawmill at Kathlapur and he was cutting the same for his own use. Neither the primary authority nor the appellate authority has considered the explanation of the petitioner at all. The primary authority has simply cancelled the license and ordered confiscation of the timber only on the ground that the petitioner has committed an offence under the Regulations, without even recording a finding on the explanation offered by the petitioner. Even the appellate authority has confirmed the order of the primary authority in the appeal filed by the petitioner on a totally different ground than the ground, which was made basis for cancellation of the license. 8. As much as the explanation filed by the petitioner was not considered either by the primary authority or the appellate authority and the order of the primary authority was confirmed by the appellate authority on a different ground than the ground which was raised in the show cause notice and the orders under challenge have been passed without considering the report of the Sub-divisional Forest Officer, Jagtial, which indicated that the timber seized is 10 years old, I deem it a fit case to set aside the orders under challenge and remit the matter to the respondent-authorities for fresh consideration. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 24-01-2000 passed by the first respondent, Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar and also the order dated 06-04-2000 passed by the second respondent, Conservator of Forests, Warangal are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Divisional Forest Officer, Warangal, the first respondent, for fresh consideration and disposal in the light of the grounds raised in the show cause notice and the explanation offered by the petitioner. The first respondent shall pass appropriate orders by issuing further notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by fixing a date, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 10. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice R. Subhash Reddy. June 20, 2007 MRR