A. GANGARAM Vs. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KARIMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the appellant assailing the refusal of his application for a direction to the respondent not to interfere with the operation of his saw mill. The application was first made on 12-1-1988, out since the application had not been accompanied with the site map and other required particulars, it was resubmitted on 8-6-1989; but was rejected on 29-1-1990 in Proceedings RC. No. 3904/58/89 of the respondent holding that already there are a number of saw mills existing in Metpally town, and therefore, taking forest protection into consideration, the permission to establish and run a new saw mill was not being granted. The learned Counsel for the appellant places reliance on the proviso to Rule 4(1 )(a) of Andhra Pradesh Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 which stipulated that, if when an application is made for installation, erection or operation of a saw mill, no licence is granted within one month from the date of receipt of the application by the licensing authority, the applicant may proceed to establish the saw mill, but not so as to contravene any of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 or any rules made thereunder. It is submitted by Sri Raghuveer Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that as the application was made on 8-6-1989 and was not responded within a month, the appellant had established the saw mill and was operating it and must be allowed to continue its operation. During the pendency of the writ appeal, an order has been passed on 27-6-1990 issuing an interim direction to the respondent not to interfere with the running of the saw mill. Similarly, interim order had been passed during the pendency of the writ petition also.

(2.) The proviso to Rule 4(1 )(a) of A. P. Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 has stood repealed by G.O.Ms. No. 448, Energy, Forests. Environment, Science and Technology (For III) Department, dated 28th Dec., 1989 published in the A. P. Gazette dated 15-1-1990.

(3.) For convenient appreciation of the submission, Rule 4(1) of the said Rules as it stood at the relevant time is extracted below :