Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K.S.Fazil-- vs 1.The Govt. Of A.P.,Rep. By The ... on 8 July, 2015
Author: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
The Honble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.18860 of 2012 08-07-2015 K.S.Fazil-- Petitioner 1.The Govt. of A.P.,rep. by the Prl.Chief Conservator of Forests,Hyderabad and another.Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner: Mrs.TM.Vani for Mr.K.Krishna Vijayprasad Counsel for the respondents: GP for Forests (TS) <GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases cited:
The Honble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.18860 of 2012 Dated 08.07.2015 The Court made the following:
Order:
The petitioner claims that since his childhood, there existed a saw mill viz., Firdoz Saw Mill, which was established by his father- K.A.Hamiz in Survey No.1026 at Siddipet, Medak District; that the area, where the alleged saw mill was located was once dominated by naxalites; and that in the arson indulged in by the naxalites, the said mill was burnt. He has stated that he has filed a petition before the Divisional Forest Officer, Medak, on 02-03-2003, for grant of a fresh saw mill license and that as the same has not yielded any result, he has made a representation on 13-04-2012 to respondent No.1. He has further averred that on 22-04-2012, respondent No.2 has visited his saw mill and seized the same. The petitioner has, therefore, sought for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents, in granting/renewing license of saw mill, as illegal and arbitrary.
Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that no saw mill had been in existence for the last 30 years in the name of Firdoz saw mill at Siddipet; that to verify whether such a saw mill was in existence or not, the Forest Range Officer, Siddipet, had visited Survey No.1026 at Siddipet on 17.07.2012 and found no traces of existence of a saw mill; that the Forest Range Officer has noticed a cattle shandy being run adjacent to the said survey number; that he had enquired with the persons available there and conducted a panchanama, wherein it was stated that a cattle shandy is being run for the last 30 years and that those people have never seen any type of saw mill machinery existing in survey No.1026. It is further stated that the photographs taken by the Forest Range Officer in Survey No.1026 show that the site is full of prosophis plants and that no saw mill was in existence. It is further stated that during the course of his visit, the Forest Range Officer, Siddipet, has called the petitioner on phone and switched on the speaker of his telephone to enable the panchas to overhear the conversation with the petitioner. This conversation, which is reduced to writing under a panchanama, is reproduced hereunder:
Once upon a time there was a Firdoz Saw Mill in said Sy.No.1026, but that was burnt by Naxlites and I lost everything and asked for Justice ! We came here for the purpose of inspection, but it is observed that there is no Saw Mill Machinery is existing earlier in your said Sy.No., Then we heard the other side voice, the persion is stating that He has not thought the matter comes to this stage, in fact there is no Saw Mill to me, but I just tried. Whats wrong in it, let it come or not, and I did like this as per the directions of my Advocate, and I havent filed an affidavit personally against you, I filed an affidavit in court against your Department ! And it is requested to see that the Saw Mill License may be granted.
No reply-affidavit is filed by the petitioner denying the contents of the counter-affidavit.
Except the bald statement made by the petitioner that the saw mill was constructed by his father and was in existence for the last 30 years, no material in support thereof such as the license or its renewal has been filed. Interestingly, on one hand, the petitioner claimed that the saw mill was gutted in fire as a result of the arson indulged in by the naxalites and on the other hand, he has pleaded in paragraph 11 of the affidavit that some petty officials from the office of respondent No.2 have seized his saw mill. The petitioner has not explained as to how the non-existing saw mill, which was, allegedly, burnt in Naxal fire, could be seized by the officials of respondent No.2. When the petitioner was called on phone by the Forest Range Officer, he seemed to have come out with the truth that he has filed the Writ Petition just to hudwink the Forest Department. This conduct of the petitioner is wholly obnoxious and despicable, which deserves strong condemnation. The petitioner has created a fanciful story and tried to mislead this Court.
The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with exemplory costs of Rs.50,000/-.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.24185 of 2012, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous.
______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 8th July, 2015