SOHAIL SAW MILL Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed seeking to call for the records in proceedings Rc. No. 88/2019/F5, dated 18.05.2019, of respondent No. 5, affirmed by respondent No. 3 in proceedings Rc. No. 1945/2019/M9, dated 07.06.2019, and quash the same.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a sawmill (represented by its Proprietor) doing business in teak logs for the last 18 years. While so, on 20.10.2019, respondent No. 5 inspected the sawmill and found that 7 round teak logs and therefore seized the sawmill on the ground of irregularities and violation, apart from registering a case in POR No. 12/166 under Section 29 of the Telangana State Forest Act, 1967 (for short, the Act) and Rule 9(12), (2), (3)(a) and (b) of the Telangana Wood Based Industries (Regulations) Rules, 2016, (for short, the Rules). Thereafter, respondent No. 5 issued a Show Cause notice to the petitioner on 25.01.2019 directing him to explain why his sawmill license should not be revoked apart from confiscating the forest produce and machinery implements. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 01.02.2019. Thereafter, yet another Show Cause notice dated 02.03.2019 came to be issued, this time alleging that the teak logs found in the sawmill are in excess of the ground stock; and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.03.2019 denying the allegations made in the notice. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 7342 of 2019 challenging seizure of sawmill. This Court, by order dated 08.04.2019 in I.A. No. 1 of 2019, directed the respondents to release the seized machinery.

(3.) It is the averment of the petitioner that similarly situated sawmills filed separate writ petitions and obtained similar orders whereunder the respondent authorities were directed to release their sawmills. Pursuant to the said orders, respondent No. 5 compounded the offences in respect of one Bilal Sawmill (which is a similarly situated sawmill as that of the petitioner herein) in proceedings in Rc. No. 87/2019/F5, dated 03.05.2019, by collecting fine, confiscating the seized timber and released the sawmill along with machinery. However, in the case of the petitioner, the respondent No. 5, by order dated 18.05.2019, revoked the business license, instead of compounding the offences as was done in the case of Bilal Sawmill. The petitioner went in appeal before respondent No. 3 requesting similar relief of compounding the offense as was done in the case of Bilal Sawmill.