Disposed

Mr. Boddeti Mahalaxmi Naidu, Krishna Dist. v. Prl. Secy., Dept. of Forest, Hyd. and Ano.

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Dec 2023WP/3547/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a Non-Objection Certificate required for a rubber wood pressing unit. The High Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh application, which the respondent must place before the State Level Committee, and restrained respondents from interfering with the petitioner's unit in the interim.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit fresh application which respondent must place before State Level Committee; respondents restrained from interfering with petitioner's unit.

Mr. Boddeti Mahalaxmi Naidu, Krishna Dist. Vs… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3547 of 2013

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief:

¶5

“…to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the second respondent in issuing the proceedings vide Rc.No.2276/2009/V4 dt.20.11.2012 in cancelling the NOC granted to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, without notice, without following due process of law…”

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Forest.

¶7

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner being the owner of M/s.Bhishma Resins & Panels made an application for registration of the pressing unit (Rubber wood), under small scale industry to the District Industrial Center, Autonagar, Vijayawada, where the petitioner was informed that NOC is required from the 2^nd respondent for registration of the unit as the petitioner is using the raw material rubber wood veeneer from Kerala. Subsequently, the petitioner made an

¶8

¶9

application to the 2^nd respondent stating that the petitioner has been using the raw material rubber wood veener from Kerala and this raw material is being purchased from private plantations from time to time, as such NOC is not required for the unit and requested the 2^nd respondent to register the unit. However, in response to the application made by the petitioner dated 22.10.2009, the 2^nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings vide Ref.No.2276/2009-V4, dt.07.11.2009 and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the shape of a fixed deposit obtained from any Nationalized Bank in favour of the Divisional Forest Officer, Krishna Division, Vijayawada to secure the conditions laid down by the department for issuance of a NOC in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the said amount as per the requirement, thereafter the 2^nd respondent after following the due procedure contemplated under law granted NOC to his unit vide proceedings dated 16.11.2009 for utilization of forest produce for his pressing unit subject to the conditions mentioned therein. While the petitioner is running smoothly without any hindrance, surprisingly, the 2^nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings vide Ref.No.2276/2009-V4

¶10

¶11

dt.20.11.2012 informing the petitioner that as per orders of the Honourable Supreme Court of India dated 16.11.2002 and 30.11.2002 passed in W.P.(C) 202/1995 and W.P.(C) 171/1996 no license for plywood factory/unit shall be issued, as such NOC issued to the Unit earlier is of no value for the purpose and the NOC was cancelled. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶12

At the stage of admission, this court on 06.07.2014 passed the interim order suspending the impugned proceedings dated 20.11.2012 issued by the 2^nd respondent. The operative portion of the said order is extracted here under:-

¶13

“ In view of the above, the earlier order passed by this Court on 29.04.2013 in W.P.M.P.No.4396 of 2013, is modified. In view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.26507 of 2013 in W.P.No.2164 of 2013 on 23.07.2013, there shall be interim suspension of the impugned proceedings dated 20.11.2012, issued by the 2^nd respondent. However, this will not preclude the State Level Committee and Central Empowered Committee for passing appropriate orders .”

¶14

Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the matter has not been placed before the State Level Committee and Central

¶15

¶16

Government Empowered Committee for taking appropriate action in pursuance of the cancellation.

¶17

In view of the same, instead of keeping the Writ Petition pending, this court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to submit a fresh application to the 2^nd respondent and on receipt of which, the 2^nd respondent is directed to place the same before the State Level Committee. Till such time, the respondents shall not interfere with the activities of the petitioner’s (rubber wood) pressing unit, running in the name and style of the M/s.Bhishma Resins & Panels.

¶18

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶20

__________________________ SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶21

Date: 18.12.2023 Pnr

Mr. Boddeti Mahalaxmi Naidu, Krishna Dist. v. Prl. Secy., Dept. of Forest, Hyd. and Ano.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Boddeti Mahalaxmi Naidu, Krishna Dist. v. Prl. Secy., Dept. of Forest, Hyd. and Ano.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Venkateswarlu, Chittoor Dist. Vs the State of a.P., Higher Education Dept., Hyd and Ano

Vadlamudi Venkata. Subrahmanyam, Hyd and 2 Others Vs Prl Secy, Environment, Forest, Science and Tech.,. Hyd and 3 Ot

Smt. Somaiah Gari Sridevi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary

Bolla Sitharamanjaneya Prasada Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Birudugadla Bheemaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Convention of Baptish Churches of Northern Circars (Cbcnc) Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh