Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Venkateswara Saw Mill vs The State Of Ap on 1 May, 2024
APHC010205382024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 10167/2024
Between:
Sri Venkateswara Saw Mill ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M VENKATA RAMANA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR FORESTS
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking the following relief:-
"....to issue a writ or direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
rd
Mandamus declaring the orders of the 3 respondent made in proceedings
Rc.No.10/2018, dt 22.04.2024 in attaching seized and sealed on 23.04.2024 the mill
namely Sri Venkateswara Saw Mill, Gopavaram, Proddattur Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa
District, Rep. by its Proprietor P.Narayana Reddy is illegal, arbitrary and violative of
Art.19 (1) (g) and Art.21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the
respondents 2 to 4 to renewal the license Form II of Sri Venkateswara Saw Mill
situated in Sy.No.52/A, Gopavaram, Proddattur Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District for
renewal of wood based industry for the year 2024, based on petitioner's
representation and submit to the respondents along with bank receipt SBI
A/c.37739683813, dated 26.12.2023...."
2. The petitioner herein is the owner of saw mill under the name and style
"Sri Venkateswara Saw Mill" which was established in SY.No.306-A of
Kondapuram Village and Mandal long back and the same is functioning
without any interruption. Thereafter, on 15.03.2018, after duly obtaining
requisite permission, the petitioner saw mill was shifted to Sy.No.52/B1A of
Gopavaram Village of Proddatur Mandal, which comes under the jurisdiction
of the 3rd respondent herein. While so, in the month of April, 2022, the
petitioner has again submitted an application for shifting his sawmill from
Sy.No.52/B1A to Sy.No.52/A of Gopavaram Village of Proddatur Mandal.
3. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated
04.04.2022 to the Joint Director, District Industries Center, Kadapa District,
requesting to shift the electricity connection from Sy.No.52/B1A to
SY.No.52/A. The said Joint Director, has addressed a letter to the Divisional
Engineer Operation, APSPDCL, Proddatur, YSR District, forwarding the
request of the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner has paid license
renewal fee of Rs.10,000/- on 26.12.2023 to the A.P. Lever Committee for
Resolution of Wood Based Industries and that the concerned authorities have
received the said license amount along with application, which is now pending
before the forest authorities. While so, to the utter surprise of the petitioner,
the 3rd respondent has issued a notice to seize and seal the petitioner sawmill
on 22.04.2024 on the ground that the petitioner has not obtained license from
the licensing authority and as the saw mill was relocated illegally to
Sy.No.52/A.
4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he has paid the
requisite fee for renewal and has followed the due process of law for shifting
his sawmill, the impugned proceedings dated 22.04.2024 were issued by the
3rd respondent, without even conducting any enquiry and physical verification
of the sawmill. As the impugned proceedings are in violation of A.P. Saw Mills
(Regulations) Rules, 1969, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader for Forests for respondents No.1 to 4.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Forests in support of the impugned
notice have submitted that the petitioner shifted his sawmill without obtaining
any permission as required under Forest Act. Therefore, the respondents
issued impugned notice, dated 22.04.2024 to the petitioner, which reads as
follows:
"It is bring to your notice that Sri P.Narayana Reddy, Owner
Venkateswara Saw Mill, Gopavaram, that the Licensing authority
was granted permission to you vide License No.5, dated
29.05.2023 in Sy.No.52/B1A to run your Saw Mill. But you without
obtaining license from licensing authority you changed the location
illegally to Sy.No.52/A. This leads to violation of Saw Mills rules.
So the above said authority by taking into consideration the above
issue directed to Seize and Seal the Saw Mill. According to this
your saw mill is seized and sealed."
7. On a perusal of the impugned notice, dated 22.04.2024, it can be
understood that though it is in the form of a notice, it is nothing but a direction
given to the Forest Range Officer, Muddanur Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District
to seize and seal the petitioner saw mill, which is admittedly in violation of
principles of natural justice. If at all the respondents found that the petitioner is
running the said sawmill without obtaining license from the licensing authority,
it is for the respondents to issue show-cause notice calling for an explanation
from the petitioner. But in the present case, instead of following the said
procedure, the respondents calling it as „Notice‟, passed orders directing the
Forest Range Officer to seize and seal the petitioner sawmill. Thus, the
respondents cannot proceed further under the guise of impugned notice,
which is admittedly a final order, which is in violation of "Audi alteram Partem"
as it is the basic concept of the principles of natural justice
8. „Audi alteram partem‟ means „hear the other side‟, or „no man should be
condemned unheared‟ or „both the sides must be heard before passing any
order‟. Generally, this maxim includes two elements: (i) Noice; and (ii)
Hearing.
9. Before taking any action, the affected party must be given a notice to
show cause as to why the action shall not be taken against him. It is a sine
qua non of the right of fair hearing. Any order passed without giving notice is
against the principles of natural justice and is void ab initio. The right to notice
means the right of being known. A notice must contain the time, place and
date of hearing, and proposed action against the person. All these things
should be included in a notice to make it proper and adequate. Non-issue of
the notice or any defective service of the notice do not affect the jurisdiction of
the authority but violates the principles of natural justice.
10. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials, firstly; a
person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are
likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard,
secondly; the concerned authority should follow fair and transparent
procedure and lastly; the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose
of the matters by reasoned order or speaking order. this has been uniformly
applied by Courts in India and abroad [vide: "Assistant Commissioner,
Commercial Tax v. M/s. Shukla1"] .
11. By applying the principle laid down in the above judgment as no notice
was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, I deem it
(2010) 4 SCC 785
appropriate to set aside the impugned order as the same is not in accordance
with law. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned
notice, dated 22.04.2024, with a direction to the respondents to conduct an
enquiry with regard to the fact whether the petitioner has relocated his sawmill
from Sy.No.52/B1A to Sy.No.52/A of Gopavaram Village, Proddatur Mandal
after duly obtaining permission from the concerned authorities or not; after
duly giving notice to the petitioner and as well as by affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner. The said process shall be completed within a period
of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ
Petition, shall stand closed.
___________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
KGR
