KHAJA RAHEEMUDDIN Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is proprietor of M/s.Rahimuddin and brothers Saw Mill, Dharmapuri in Karimnagar District. His father established the said saw mill statedly in 1976 after obtaining a licence from the first respondent as required under A.P.Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 (hereafter called the Rules, for brevity). After the demise of the father, the petitioner has been running the saw mill. It appears the second respondent herein having received some anonymous information on 13.05.2005 regarding misuse of permits by the petitioner, inspected the petitioner's saw mill on 15.05.2005 along with special party staff. The second respondent collected six original permits and verified the same with reference to the records of the office of the second respondent. He allegedly found variations in the quantities. Therefore, on the same day, the second respondent seized the petitioner's saw mill and submitted a report on 18.05.2005 to the first respondent. The latter having come to an initial conclusion that the petitioner indulged in illegal activities and illegal trading of timber, issued a show cause notice on 24.05.2005 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the saw mill licence should not be cancelled besides confiscating the timber and plant involved in the offence and further show cause as to why penal action should not be taken under Rules 7 and 9 of the Rules, Sections 20 and 29 of A.P.Forest Act, 1967 (the Act, for brevity) for violation of Rule 5 of A.P.Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 (the Transit Rules, for brevity). After receiving show cause notice, the petitioner submitted explanation on 22.08.2005 to lift the seizure in vain. The first respondent also did not pass any orders pursuant to show cause notice either cancelling the licence or confiscating forest produce stopped in the saw mill. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the six permits seized by the second respondent were valid up to 31.03.2004 and therefore the allegation of variation of the permits in no manner can lead to culpability of the petitioner. It is also his contention that the petitioner never applied for permits and even permits are issued, they will be in the custody of the third respondent and no saw mill owner will be permitted to retain the permits. Even before deciding this question, seizing the unit is contrary to law and violates principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, it is unfair on the part of the respondents to seize the entire saw mill even before passing orders and therefore the same is in violation of Rule 9 of the Rules.

(3.) The matter was initially listed for preliminary hearing on 26.10.2005 and the matter was adjourned from time to time to enable the learned Government Pleader for Forests Department to get instructions in the matter, to file counter and to produce the original file from the Secretariat of Andhra Pradesh dealing with the subsequent amendment to Rule 9. This was necessitated as the question involves the interpretation of Rule 9 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.234, Forest and Rural Development Department, dated 23.05.1985 gazetted on 06.06.1985. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader has filed counter affidavit and also produced the file.