A GANGARAM Vs. 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 sawmill. The application was first made on 12-1 -198 8, but since the application had not been accompanied with the site map and other required particulars, it was resubmitted on 8-6-1989; butwas rejected on29-l-1990 in Proceedings Rc.No. 3904/58/89 of the Respondent holding that already there are a number of saw mills existinginMetpally town, and therefore, taking forest protection into consideration, the permission to establish and run anew sawmill 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 respondentnot to interfere with the running of the saw mill. Similarly, interim order had been passed during the pendency of writ petition also.

(2.) The proviso to Rule 4(1 )(a) of AP.Saw.Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 has stood repealed by G. O.Ms.No. 448, Energy, Forests, Environment, Science and Technology (For-m) Department, dated 28th December, 1989 published in the A.P.Gazette dated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:- 4(1 )(a). Any person desiring to install, erect or operate a Saw 'Mill (within the area specified in Rule-3) shall make an application (along with a site plan indicating the location) in that behalf to the licensing authority. Provided that where within a period of one month from the date of receipt of application by the licensing authority the applicant has not been granted the licence, the applicant may proceed to establish a saw mill, butnot so as to contravene any of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 or any rule made thereunder. (b). Every proprietor of an existing Saw Mill (within the area specified in Rule-3) shall obtain a license from the licensing authority within ninety days from the date of the publication of these rules.'' Rule 4(1 )(a) only makes provision for an application along with the site plan indicating the location. The proviso can operate only as a restraint upon the substantive provision and would be meaningful in that context, which so considered could only confer aright, when the application was not responded within a month, to allow the applicant to proceed to establish the sawmill. Rule3 compulsorily requires a licence, inter alia, for operating a saw mill and under Rule 4(2), the licensing authority while considering the question of grant of a licence when application is made for the purpose, is to make such enquiry as he deems fit and after satisfying himself whether or not there would be any objection to granting of the licence having regard to safeguarding the timber in any reserved protected or proposed forest, or in any land referred to in Rule 3, may grant a licence. Hence one of the considerations in grant or refusal of the licence is the safeguarding of the timber in the reserved protected or proposed forest or the land referred to in Rule 3. Hence, even though the proviso to Rule 4(l)(a), while it stood the field, permitted the applicant to go on with the establishment of the Saw Millyet, did not permit him to operate the SawMill without alicence. The relief sought in the writ appeal is to allow the appellant to continue to operate the Saw Mill, which in effect amounts to seeking a direction from the Court to allowthe Saw Mill to be operated without a licence. Obviously, such relief cannot be granted.