DECENT SAW MILL Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The show cause notice dated 4-8-1997 and similar such notices issued for the third successive time are challenged in these Writ Petitions. The questions of law in all the Writ Petitions are similar and hence all the writ petitions are decided by a common judgment.

(2.) The facts are in short compass:The petitioners herein are the Saw Mills situate within the municipal limits of Nizamabad. They have been running the Saw Mills in.accordance with the procedure established by law. It is the case of the petitioners that they do not always directly purchase the timber. But, the brokers or commission agents as per the requirements of the Saw Mill owners purchase the timber from the timber depot of the Government or from the pattedars either in Andhra Pradesh or Maharashtra and obtained permits for transporting them to Saw Mills. The timber covered by the valid permits are being checked at the check posts and necessary endorsements are made on the permits. Even when the timber is unloaded in the Saw Mills, the authorities are informed. The timber unloaded was sawn and sold to the purchasers under permits granted by the officials. While so, show cause notices were issued to the petitioners on 1,2-8-1996 alleging that huge quantity of illicit timber was unloaded in the Saw Mill under the fake and forged permits and therefore they indulged in the illegal transportation of timber and hence show cause notices were issued to them as to why the Saw Mills, equipment and infrastructure should not be confiscated to the State under Rule 9 of A.P. Saw Mill (Regulation) Rules, 1969 and as per the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and the Rules made thereunder. Aggrieved by the said show cause notices, all the petitioners filed different WritPetitions namely W.P.No.22314/1996 & Batch. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader conceded before the Court that the show cause notices issued could not be sustained in law as Rule 9 of A.P. Saw Mill (Regulation) Rules, 1969 was not applicable to the Nizambad town. Basing on the said submissions all the writ petitions were allowed on 11-12-1996. However, it was made open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.

(3.) For the second time, again the show cause notices were issued to thepetitioners on 8-2-1997 alleging that timber was transported in violation of the Rule 3 of A.P. Transit Rules, 1970 and therefore required the petitioners to submit the explanations as to why the action under A.P. Forest Act and also under Section 44 (2-B) and Rules, 3 and 5 of A,P. Forest Transit Rules, 1970 should not be taken against the petitioners for confiscating the Saw Mill, equipment and infrastructure. Again the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 4301/1997 & Batch. This Court by an order dated 16-6-1997 quashed the said show cause notices, observing that it is open for the respondents to issue fresh notices under appropriate rules, if they are so advised.