CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS Vs. BR SAW MILL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four Writ Appeals arising out of a common order passed on 1-11-2002 in W.P.Nos.26864, 26877,26898 and 26978 of 1999 respectively came up for consideration before us. It was brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the Writ Petition Nos. 34514, 34516, 34524 and 34528 of 1998 arising out of the same subject matter filed by the very same writ petitioners i.e. respondents in the Writ Appeals were pending consideration, hence the writ appeals and the writ petitions be heard together. With the consent of all the parties the writ petitions have also been taken on record. The appeals and the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The parties are being referred to by their status in the Writ Appeals. The respondents claim that the saw mills were established within Nizamabad Municipal area much prior to the date when Andhra Pradesh Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") were made applicable to the said area. When the saw mills were established there was no necessity to obtain any licence to install, erect or operate a sawmill in the notified municipal areas. Only when the rules were made applicable even to municipal areas by reason of G.O.Ms.No.99 dated 17-7-1998, necessity arose to obtain licence.

(3.) It appears that huge quantity of illicit timber had flown into Nizamabad municipal area, alleged to be covered under fake and forged permits during the year 1993-94. The forest authorities (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) issued show cause notice invoking the provisions of the rules with a view to confiscate the stock of timber lying in the respondents' saw mills and to explain about the illicit transportation of timber. Feeling aggrieved the respondents (Saw Mills) filed a batch of Writ Petitions, one of which was W.P.No.22314 of 1996, seeking quashing of notices, inter alia, alleging that the permits in question were not fake and that the timber covered by the said permits had already been disposed of under the cover of transit permits granted by the forest authorities. By order dated 11-12-1996, the Writ Petitions were disposed of quashing the show cause notices on the ground that the rules were not attracted since the saw mills were located in municipal area. While disposing of the writ petitions, certain observations were made and liberty was reserved to the appellants to take action against the sawmills, in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, second show cause notices issued in February, 1997 intending to confiscate the timber and the saw mills, purportedly, invoking Section 44 of the A.P. Forest Act (for short "the Act") and Rules 3 and 5 of Andhra Pradesh Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 and Feeling aggrieved, a batch of writ petitions were filed by respondents, one of which was W.P.No.4301 of 1997. Respondents allege that the said writ petitions were allowed by this Court on 16-6-1997 quashing the notices since the timber was not available for seizure. The appellant thereafter is alleged to have issued another show cause notice dated 4-8-1997 under Rules 2, 8 and 11 of A.P. Forest Produce (Storage and Deport) Rules, 1989 proposing to confiscate the timber possessed by the respondents together with the saw mill equipment and infrastructure used in conversion of the timber which was alleged to have been smuggled. Another batch of writ petitions were filed by the respondents challenging the notices on the ground that the said rules under which the notices had been issued had no application to the respondents - sawmills. These writ petitions were allowed by a common Order dated 20-3-1998. Notices were quashed and the appellants were directed to consider the applications of the respondents for grant of transit permits.