Potturi Tulasi Das vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1362 AP

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

              WRIT PETITION No.21021 OF 2013

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus

declaring the non-renewal of saw-mill licence to the premises

bearing D.No.6-231 situated at Chilakaluripet, Guntur District in

the name of Sri Chaithanya Saw Mill, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The case of the petitioner is that his father namely Sri

Pothuri Venkata Koteswara Rao established a saw-mill in the

premises bearing D.No.6-129 (old) and 6-231 (new) situated at

Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. His father had run the said saw-

mill successfully during his lifetime with absolute rights and on

his demise, the said saw-mill devolved upon the petitioner by way

of partition deed in the year 1972 and thereby he became a lawful

owner of the said saw-mill. During the period from 1983 to 1986,

the saw-mill was leased out to one Potru Nageswara Rao and as

the said Nageswara Rao had not vacated the saw-mill on repeated

demands, he filed O.S.No.104 of 1990 on the file of the Junior

Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet seeking for his eviction. The said suit

was decreed directing the defendant therein namely Potru

Nageswara Rao to vacate the schedule premises within a period of

two months and deliver the possession of the same to the

petitioner/plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the said Potru

Nageswara Rao preferred A.S.No.67 of 1999 on the file of the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District and it

appears that the same was dismissed on 30.11.2000. Then, the

said Potru Nageswara Rao preferred Second Appeal No.54 of 2001

and this Court dismissed the same at the stage of admission by

judgment dated 16.11.2001. Against which, he filed SLP (Civil)

No.22299 of 2001 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same

was also dismissed. Then, the petitioner filed E.P.No.94 of 2001

for execution of the decree and the said Potru Nageswara Rao filed

E.A.No.494 of 2001 under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC to enquire into

the matter of obstruction with regard to the existing super

structures. The trial Court rejected the said E.A. by order dated

02.01.2002. Then, the said Potru Nageswara Rao filed A.S.No.9 of

2002 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet

and the same was allowed on 17.06.2002. Hence, the petitioner

preferred C.M.S.A.No.11 of 2002, wherein this Court by order

dated 03.09.2004 [reported in 2004(6) ALT 525] allowed the same

with costs throughout by setting aside the judgment and decree

passed in A.S.No.9 of 2002 and upholding the dismissal of

E.A.No.494 of 2001 passed by the Executing Court. Hence, the

possession of the schedule property was delivered to the petitioner

on 16.09.2004 and in turn he took the possession and enjoyment

of the saw-mill by paying electricity bills vide Service Connection

No. 02101004381 in the name of 'Sri Chaithanya Saw Mill'. At

this juncture, he found that the said Potru Nageswara Rao

obtained the licence in the name of 'Potru Nageswara Rao Saw

Mill' in the said premises, without his consent or knowledge. The

said licence was issued wrongfully by the respondents without any

verification. He also made an application to the respondent

authorities for change of licence in the name of 'Sri Chaithanya

Saw Mill' by paying Rs.500/- by way of challan and obtained

Licence No.27 in D.No.6-231 situated in his premises at

Chilakaluripet. The licence is continuing in the name of 'Ganesh

Saw Mill' for want of name change and for the renewal, for which

the petitioner made several representations to the respondent

authorities. The respondent authorities issued notice to him by

letter dated 01.02.1982 vide Ref.No.Rc.No.67/79/F for payment of

arrears of saw mill licence fee from 1969-79. He remitted an

amount of Rs.882/- to the Forest Division, Guntur and he was

given receipt in the name of 'Ganesh Saw Mill'. Subsequently, the

name of 'Ganesh Saw Mill' was changed to 'Sri Chaithanya Saw

Mill' and the same was intimated to the Forest Department to

treat the Ganesh Saw Mill as Sri Chaithanya Saw Mill and

requested for renewal of the same. He submitted representations

on 12.01.2005 and 04.02.2005 for change of name and for

renewal of licence in the name of 'Sri Chaithanya Saw Mill'

situated in the premises bearing D.No.6-231, Chilakaluripet,

Guntur District. The 3rd respondent made a correspondence vide

R.C.No.2243/05/M6 dated 16.09.2005 and a copy was addressed

to him. The matter is pending with the authorities and no action

is taken till date. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition

is filed.

3. The 4th respondent - District Forest Officer, Guntur filed

counter-affidavit and also additional counter-affidavit. As per the

records of the Forest Department, no licence was in existence in

the name of M/s.Chaitanya Saw Mill. A Saw Mill licence was

given in the name of M/s.Potru Nageswara Rao Timber Merchants

& Saw Mill, Chilakaluripet, which was sanctioned by the

Divisional Forest Officer, Guntur vide Rc.No.1195/94/S2 dated

02.05.1994. The licence holder M/s.Potru Nageswara Rao Timber

Merchants and Saw Mill, Chilakaluripet shifted his saw mill

business at Door No.6-231/B, Chilakaluripet, Bhaskar Theater

Center. The petitioner might have been paying the electricity bills

for Service No.02101004281 on non-existence firm i.e.,

M/s.Chaitanya Saw Mill. In fact, the premises in Door No.

6-231/B stands in the name of one Potru Hari Prasad. After

eviction orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said

M/s.Potru Nageswara Rao Timber Merchants & Saw Mill,

Chilakaluripet was shifted to the said premises. The contention of

the petitioner that Potru Nageswara Rao was issued Saw Mill

licence wrongly without verification, is false and incorrect. The

licence No.27 in fact stood in the name of M/s.Potru Nageswara

Rao Timber Merchants & Saw Mill, Chilakaluripet. Prior to 2006

rules under A.P. Forest Act, there is no facility provided for change

of firm name. As per the records available with the Forest

Department, no saw mill licence is in force either in the name of

M/s.Ganesh Saw Mill or in the name of M/s.Chaitanya Saw Mill.

The petitioner has not placed any sort of evidence that he has paid

the arrears of Rs.822/- for renewal of Ganesh Saw Mill. The

petitioner applied licence only for timber depot in the name of

M/s.Omkareswara Timber Depot and a licence No.19/2006/S2

was issued vide Office Rc.No.27/2006/S2 (Sc.No.4381), which

was already being existing. The Saw mill licence No.27 sitauted at

D.No.6-231/A was in the name of M/s.Potru Nageswara Rao

Timber Merchants and Saw Mill, Chilakaluripet and not belongs to

the petitioner. The 4th respondent has already disposed the

representations as per the records available. The 2nd respondent

submitted a report to the 1st respondent vide Ref.No.27416/05/V3

dated 12.04.2008, giving all the details recommending for

rejection of the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, no

reference is pending before the competent authority.

4. Sri Potturi Tulasi Das, party-in-person, submits that non-

consideration of the representation of the petitioner for change of

name from 'Ganesh Saw Mill' to 'Sri Chaithanya Saw Mill' and for

renewal of licence in the premises bearing D.No.6-231 in the name

of Sri Chaitanya Saw Mill, is illegal and contrary to the provisions

of the Andhra Pradesh Saw Mill (Regulation) Rules, 1969 (for short

'the Rules, 1969'). The licence granted under Rule 4 shall, subject

to the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1969, be effective from the

date of issue or from the date of expiry of the period specified in

the proviso to Clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4, as the case may

be, to the 31st December of the year upto which licence is granted,

both days inclusive. At the time of expiry, since the licence was

stood in the name of Ganesh Saw Mill, the petitioner submitted

application for renewal and change of saw mill from 'Ganesh Saw

Mill' to 'Sri Chaitanya Saw Mill' in the premises bearing D.No.

6-231 of Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. The averments of the

counter filed by the 4th respondent - District Collector are false

and incorrect and are not supported by any documentary evidence

and hence the counter could not be taken into consideration.

He has taken this Court to the additional documents filed

through a Memo in Telugu in support of his contentions. The said

documents are no bearing on the issue except judgment of the

High Court in C.M.S.A.No.11 of 2002 reported in 2004(6) ALT 525

with regard to the eviction of Potru Nageswara Rao from the leased

premises.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Forests, while reiterating

the averments of the counter, stoutly opposed for grant of any

direction to consider the representation of the petitioner for

renewal of saw mill licence and change of name of saw mill vide

Licence No.27 from 'Ganesh Saw Mill' to 'Sri Chaitanya Saw Mill'.

But, no saw mill is in existence in the name of 'M/s.Ganesh Saw

Mill' or in the name of 'M/s.Sri Chaitanya Saw Mill' and only the

licence in the name of 'M/s.Omkareswara Timber Depot' situated

at Door No.6-231 vide Licence No.19/2006/S2 (Sc.No.4381) is in

existence. The saw mill vide Licence No.27 situated at D.No.

6-231/A is stood in the name of M/s.Potru Nageswara Rao Timber

Merchants and Saw Mill, Chilakaluripet. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995 (T.N.Godavarman

Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and others) dated 29.10.2002,

directed all the State Governments not to issue fresh licences to

saw mills and the saw mills existing and running regularly as on

the date of judgment were continued. He further submits that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995

(T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and others)

dated 05.10.2015, issued directions for formation of State Level

Committees by replacing with the Central Empowered Committee

to deal with all matters connected with Wood Based industries.

He further submits that in view of issuance of the Andhra Pradesh

Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Rules,

2018 through G.O.Ms.No.48, Environment, Forest, Science &

Technology (Section II) Department dated 08.05.2018 by

substituting the Andhra Pradesh Sawmill (Regulation) Rules,

1969. The new rules of 2018 were published in extraordinary

issue of Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 11.05.2018. As per Rule

4(3), every proprietor of an existing wood based industry shall

obtain a licence from the licensing authority within sixty days

from the date of publication of the rules. The petitioner could not

obtain licence under 2018 rules as there was no saw mill existing

and functioning in his name as claimed by him. Hence, the claim

of the petitioner for renewal of licence and change of saw mill

name as 'Sri Chaitanya Saw Mill', does not arise and the writ

petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of

the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court found

that the saw mill licence No.27 is issued in the name of M/s.Potru

Nageswara Rao Timber Merchants and Saw Mill, Chilakaluripet

and functioning from the premises bearing Door No.6-231/A. No

saw mill in the name of 'Ganesh Saw Mill' is in existence in the

premises at Door No.6-231. In fact, M/s.Omkareswara Timber

Depot is functioning as per Licence No.19/2006/S2 vide

Sc.No.4381 and no saw mill either in the name of 'Ganesh Saw

Mill' or 'Sri Chaitanya Saw Mill' is in existence, as per the version

of the Forest Department. The petitioner has also not placed any

legally admissible evidence to show that there existed a saw mill in

the name of his father late Venkata Koteswara Rao in the premises

bearing Door No.6-231 of Chilakaluripet. But, admittedly,

M/s.Omkareswara Timber Depot vide licence No.19/2006/S2, is

existing.

7. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ

Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995 (T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs.

Union of India and others) dated 29.10.2002, no fresh licence

could be issued even for renewal and one has to get the licence in

concurrence with the Central Empowered Committee with regard

to the Wood based industries. Even according to Rule 4(3) of the

provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Wood Based Industries

(Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2018, which came into

force from 11.05.2018, every proprietor of an existing wood based

industry shall obtain a licence from the licensing authority within

sixty days from the date of publication of the rules. The petitioner

could not obtain licence under 2018 rules, as there was no saw

mill existing and functioning in his name. Further, no legal

evidence is placed in support of the claim of the petitioner.

8. In view of the above discussion, this Court found that the

writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to

costs.

10. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition

shall also stand dismissed.

____________________________ JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

10-03-2023 anr

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

WRIT PETITION No. 21021 OF 2013

10-03-2023

anr