SRI SATYANARAYANA SAW MILL Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was granted licence to establish a Saw Mill in the year 2000. It was being renewed from time to time. The renewal fee is to be paid by 31st December of every year and with late fee of Rs.250/- upto the end of February of succeeding year. For the year 2004, the petitioner paid the renewal fee of Rs.1,000/- with late fee of Rs.250/- on 26.3.2004 and submitted an application for renewal. No orders have been passed on the application. For the year 2005, the renewal fee was paid on 25.1.2005 with late fee of Rs.250/-. For this year also, no orders were passed, either granting or refusing renewal. For the year 2006, the petitioner paid the renewal fee on 31.12.2005 and filed an application. On 18.3.2006, the respondents seized the Saw Mill of the petitioner on the ground that there did not exist valid renewal for the year 2004. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents and seeks appropriate directions.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the last date for payment of licence fee with late fee is 20th December of the particular year and the petitioner failed to remit the licence fee even by 28.2.2004. According to the respondents, the licence of the petitioner lapsed by operation of Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules') and the only course open to it was to file an application for grant of fresh licence. By citing the order of the Supreme Court, dated 15.11.2002, in W.P. No.202 of 1995, the respondents state that even fresh licence cannot be granted to the petitioner.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents did not reject the application for the year 2004 on any ground, much less on the ground that the licence fee was not paid within time and the fact that they have received the licence fee for the subsequent years 2005 and 2006 without any demur, discloses that the application for renewal of the licence for the year 2004 was not rejected. He contends that the petitioner was disabled from paying the licence fee within time for the year 2004 on account of reasons beyond his control.