Partly allowed

Pattapagalu Venkat Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Jan 2024WP/2339/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross writ petitions over a saw mill licence on disputed land: the licensee sought renewal after refusal and dismissal of his appeal; the rival claimant sought suspension of the licence. The court held status quo should continue until the civil suit decides title, allowed the licensee's petition for renewal subject to legal requirements, and dismissed the suspension plea.

What did the court decide?

Impugned appeal order dated 06.07.2023 set aside; respondents 2 and 3 directed to renew the licence on application subject to legal requirements; WP 2339/2023 dismissed; no costs.

Pattapagalu Venkat Rao Vs the State of Andhra… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 19256 AND 2339 OF 20?.?

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19256 OF 2n?.^

¶7

Between:

¶8

'yiT'Srnt of'Kala'!;i'pLTy Sa^Mandal Wes^^^^

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary Forest Deoartment Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶12

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Aranya Bhavan, K.M. Munshi

¶13

Roa(^ Nagarampalem, Guntur Guntur District.

¶14

The Chief Forest Officer, Rajamahendrvaram Circle Rajamahendrvaram

¶15

East Godavari District.

¶16

The District Forest Officer, Eluru Forest Division Eluru, West Godavari

¶17

District.

¶18

Pattapagalu Venkat Rao, S/o. Chinna Venkanna r R/o.D.No. 71-29-3, Malina

¶19

Nagar, Rajamahendrvaram, East Godavari District

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

isfSlgsssSs; dated. 09 02 2023 arilS^al Tr^iS 646/2023-P2 A.P. Forest Act IQfiT .nf ; f I ‘^e Section of 35 of^the consequently direct the respondents ^to illegal, arbitrary^and imposing any condit ons by"sS aside '^'‘^hout respondent. ^ ^ proceedings issued by the

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 709-^

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statpH in the affidavit filed i.n support of .he writ petition, the High Court may be pieSed ot

¶24

direct the respondents to renew the license of M/s. Veeranjaneya Saw Mill, Kalavalapallly, Chagallu Mandal East Godavari District not withstanding the orders passed by the 3"'' respondent in RC.No. 381 Appeal /2023-M4 dated 06.07.2023 confirming the order passed by the 4'^ respondent in RC.No. 646/2023-P-2 dated 09.02.2023, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR FORESTS

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI ALMAS MOHAMMED

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 2339 OF 2023

¶29

Between:

¶30

Pattapagalu Venkat Rao, S/o. Chiina Venkanna, Aged About 75 Years, Occ. Business, Resident of D.No. 71-29-3, Mallina Nagar, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND

¶31

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, Department of Forest, A.P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist.,^A.P.

¶32

The Principle Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, K.M. Munshi Road, Nagarampalem, Guntur - 522 004, A.P.

¶33

The Chief Forest Officer, Rajamahendravaram circle, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari Dist., A.P.

¶34

The District Forest Officer, East Godavari Forest Division, Behind Municipal Office, 0pp. Reliance Mart, Rajainaliendravararn, East Godavari District, A.P.

¶35

The Forest Range Officer, Rajamahendravaram Range, 0pp. Forest Academy, Lala Cheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, A.P

¶36

M/s. Veeranjaneya Saw Mill, Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Tata Rao, Located at Kalavalapally Village and Panchayath, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District, A.P.

¶37

...RESPONDENTS

¶38

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one In the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, declaring the inaction of the Respondents 4 and 5 in suspending the impugned licence granted to the 6*^ Respondent for the wood based industry cum Depot vide Rc. No. 6961/2008-A2 dated 08- 09-2013 situated at the petition schedule property, which was granted on misrepresentation of the title, and renewed up to the year 2021, valid up 31-122021. inspite of several representations by the Petitioner (being the owner of the petition schedule property) dated 16-11-2022, 05-12-2022 and 03-01-2023 and enabling the 6th Respondent to pay the online licence renewal fee and further to run the SAW Mill as illegal, arbitrary, unilateral, unjust and against procedure of Law and in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the

¶39

procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act and consequently direct the Respondent 4 and 5 to seize the operations of the 6*'^ Respondent without there being valid renewal of licence.

¶40

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶41

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 4 and 5 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the Petitioner dated 16-11-2022, 05-12-2022 and 0301-2023 by further directing the Respondent 4 and 5 to seize’the operations of the 6th Respondent saw mill until pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶42

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶43

Between:

¶44

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, Department of Forest, A.P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist.,^A.P.

¶45

The Principle Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, K.M. Munshi Road, Nagarampalem, Guntur - 522 004, A.P.

¶46

The Chief Forest Officer, Rajamahendravaram circle, Rajamahendravaram East Godavari Dist., A.P.

¶47

^ District Forest Officer, East Godavari Forest Division, Behind Municipal Office, 0pp. Reliance Mart, Rajainaliendravararn, East Godavari District, A.P.

¶48

1. The Forest Range Officer, Rajamahendravaram Range, 0pp. Forest Academy, Lala Cheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, A P

¶49

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶50

AND

¶51

Pattapagalu Venkat Rao, S/o. Chiina Venkanna, Aged About 75 Years Occ Business, Resident of D.No. 71-29-3, Mallina Nagar, Rajamahendravaram East Godavari District, A.P.

¶52

, ,, ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. M/s. Veeranjaneya Saw Mill, Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Tata Rao, Located at Kalavalapally Village and Panchayath, Chagallu Mandal West Godavari District, A.P.

¶53

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶54

fha DPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 01.02.2023 passed m W.P.No. 2339 of 2023 and dismiss the writ petition in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI ALMAS MOHAMMED Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : GP FOR FORESTS Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI M. DEVI PRASAD

¶55

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶56

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶57

WRIT PETITION Nos. 19256 and 2339 of 2023

¶58

COMMON ORDER;

¶59

The petitioner in W.P.No.2339 of 2023 has filed the writ petition seeking suspension of the license granted to the 6^*1 respondent therein vide Rc.No.6961/2008A2, dated 08.09.2013 who is the petitioner in W.P.No. 19256 of 2023. As the subject^{matterinboththe} writ petitions is of the same saw mill, I am of the^view that it is appropriate to decide both the petitions by way of^acommonorder taking Writ Petition No. 19256 of 2023 as leading petition.

¶60

W.P. No. 19256 of 2023 came to be filed under Article 226 of the

¶61

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶62

“...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of^{therespondentNo.3in} issuing the proceedings vide no RC.No.381 Appeal /2023M4 dated 06.07.2023 in Appeal No.381/2023 conifrming the proceedings of 4'f' respondent i.e. District Forest Officer, Bast Godavari Division, Rajamahendravaram in R.C.No.646/2023P2 dated 09.02.2023^asillegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Section of 35 of the^{A.P.ForestAct,1967and} rules made thereunder and as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to renew the Petitioners license without imposing any conditions by setting aside the proceedings issued^bythe 3'^^ respondent and pass...".

¶63

The brief facts of the case are that during 2007, the petitioner sold his ancestral property and purchased^{anotherproperty} admeasuring an extent of Acs.0.97 cents in R.S.No.4/2 situated at Kalavalapalli village, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District

¶64

¶65

(hereinafter referred as ‘Property^ vide settlement deed dated 27.05.2011. While so, on 31.12.2013, the petitioner has established a weigh bridge and saw mill in the name and style of M/s Sri Vearangjaneya Weight Bridge and M/s Sri Veeranjaneya Saw Mill in the said properly in pursuance of the approval from the forest department. The conversion of the said property from agricultural to a non-agricultural purpose was issued on 27.07.2011 vide proceedings of the R.D.O., Kowur and on 24.09.2011, the Tahsidlar, Chagallu mandal has issued possession certificate in favour of the petitioner.

¶66

Subsequently, the petitioner has leased out the sawmill to one Sri Kondepati Harinadham on 20.02.2014 for a period of 16 years 10 months and executed an unregistered deed dated 20.02.2014. But, the Sa- respondent with a fraudulent motive to knock away the said property, has fabricated false documents styling them as Sale deeds and instituted a suit vide bearing O.S.No.275 of 2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovur against the petitioner for eviction from the property and alleged arrears thereof. Thereafter, the 5th respondent has also preferred another O.S.No.30/2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nidadavole against the petitioner seeking for permanent injunction and the same was dismissed on 09.11.2021. Thereafter, the 4* respondent has renewed petitioner’s license basing upon the documents produced by the petitioner relating to title, in accordance with Rule 10 of A.P. Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulations) Rules, 2018 after due enquiry and

¶67

¶68

verification of title deeds and possession certificate submitted by the petitioner.

¶69

While so, the 5*^ respondent filed W.P.No.2380 of 2022 before this Court challenging the orders of license^{renewalofwood-} based industry vide DFO File No.6961/2009/SS for the year valid up to 31.12.2021 issued in favour of the petitioner, which^washowever dismissed as withdrawn on 14.10.2022. Thereafter, another writ petition was filed by the 5* respondent vide W.P.No.2339 of 2023 challenging the inaction of the respondent No.4 in suspending the impugned license granted to the petitioner, in which,^thisCourthas passed an interim order on 01.02.2023 directing the 4^^ respondent to consider the 5^^ respondent’s representation dated^{03.01.2023andto} pass a speaking order within a period of four (4) weeks. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the Forest Range Officer, Rajahmundry on 07.02.2023 had conducted enquiry at the premises, during which, the petitioner has submitted all the title deeds and lease deeds pertaining to the schedule property. But, however, the 1®^ respondent, basing on the report submitted by the Forest Range Officer erred in holding that the petitioner has not produced relevant documents pertaining to the property, though the petitioner has submitted documents^atthetime of enquiry, refused to renew license issued in favour of the petitioner for the year 2023 which is contrary to Rule 15 of A.P.^WoodBased Industries (Establishment and Regulations) Rules, 2018^andAndhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967.

¶70

¶71

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the respondent seeking to suspend the^orderdated 09.02.2023 by renewing petitioner’s license of saw mill for the year 2023. But, the 3'^'^ respondent, despite receiving and acknowledging the appeal, failed to adjudicate the appeal. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the 3rd respondent is obligated to adjudicate the appeal as per the Act and rules made thereunder, the 3rd respondent, without examining the documents and without giving an opportunity of hearing, has passed the impugned proceedings^dated 06.07.2023 dismissing the appeal. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶72

The respondent No.4 has filed a detailed counter stating that the 4* respondent issued impugned orders in Re.No.649/2023P2, dated 09.02.2023 in which the renewal of license of the petitioner for the year 2023 was rejected as the license holder,^who is the petitioner herein has not produced the Title Deed or^{LeaseDeedofthe} premises of the subject sawmill or an undertaking stating^thatthe premises of the subject sawmill are on lease from the land owner. Aggrieved by the rejection orders of this respondent the petitioner filed appeal before the 3‘''i respondent which was rejected vide Rc.No.381(Appeal)/2023-M4, dated 06.07.2023 holding^there are no valid grounds to interfere with the orders of 4^ respondent. The petitioner is mentioning the details of the property and the monetary transaction on the properties which are not relevant to the case. The petitioner has stated the sequence of events in respect^ofthesawmill property and how it was taken over by 5*^ respondent herein and

¶73

¶74

basing on the documents presented, the sawmill was^{renewedforthe} year 2021. During the year 2021-22 the petitioner applied for the Renewal of License with a possession certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Chagallu, dated 27.05.2022, but thereafter, the Tahsildar, Chagallu has issued another letter dt.30.05.2022, stating that his earlier letter dated 27.05.2022 may not be considered^asthelandwas purchased by the 5*^ respondent herein.

¶75

The 5* respondent filed O.S.No. 275/2017 on the file^of Senior Civil Judge, Kovvuru seeking eviction of the petitioner and also claiming arrears of amount due. Subsequently, the 5* respondent also filed O.S.No.30/2018 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nidadavolu for permanent injunction against the petitioner herein. but, however the case was dismissed on 09.11.2021 as the plaintiff (5* respondent herein) was not interested to continue the suit. Thereafter, the 5^^ respondent herein filed W.P.No.2380/2022 challenging the renewal of license of the petitioner with validity upto 31.12.2021 which was dismissed as infructuous. Thereafter the 5^^ respondent filed W.P.No.2339 of 2023 seeking directions^tothe 4^^ respondent herein and Forest Range Officer, Rajahmundiy^to take action to suspend the license granted to the petitioner^{hereinsituated} in 5* respondent's property, which was granted on misrepresentat^ion of title. In the said writ petition, this Court vide order dated 01.02.2023 in LA.No.01 of 2023 has directed the respondents to consider the representation of the 5^^ respondent herein and pass a speaking order. Accordingly, the 4^ respondent passed speaking

¶76

¶77

orders in Rc.No.646/2023-P2, dt.09.02.2023 refusing^{torenewlieense} for the year 2023 as the license holder (B. Tata Rao) has not submitted the required documents. This Court in interim orders dt.27.07.2023 in I.A.No.Ol of 2023 in W.P.No.2339 of 2023 filed by the 5^11 respondent, passed the interim order appointing^theAdvocate Commissioner to verify the status of running of the sawmill of the petitioner herein. The report dated 23.08.2023 of the Advocate Commissioner has been submitted before this Court on 28.08.2023 stating that the subject Saw Mill is not running as on the date i.e., 19.08.2023.

¶78

The appeal of the petitioner herein was examined by^the 3’'<i respondent and petitioner herein also submitted^{hisstatementto} the Appellate Authority wherein it was mentioned that the land where the subject sawmill existing is located in Sy.No.4/2 (Ac.0.50 cents), Kalavapally Village, Chagallu Mandal belongs to the petitioner herein which was obtained through gift deed by his wife on^25.07.2011. It was also stated that the sawmill license of the petitioner^wasrenewed from the year 2013 to 2022 as per the said document^mentioned above. The respondent referred to the letter of Tahsildar, Chagallu dt.30.05.2022, stating that his earlier letter dt.27.05.2022 on possession of the land may be ignored in view of the application made by the 5* respondent herein and in view of the land dispute in O.S.No.275/2017 before the Senior Civil Judge Court,^Kovvuru.The respondent rejected the appeal as there are no valid grounds to interfere with the orders of the 4*^ respondent vide Rc.No.381 (Appeal)/

¶79

¶80

2023-M4, dt.06.07.2023. The impugned orders issued by 4^^ respondent dt.09.02.2023 and the orders issued in appeal by the 3''‘i respondent in his reference dt.06.07.2023 are proper^anddue to the land dispute which is pending in Civil Court, the renewal^ofSawmill license cannot be considered.

¶81

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Forests and Sri M. Devi Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

¶82

A perusal of the Andhra Pradesh Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2018 (for short 'the Rules') discloses that they are comprehensive enough to deal^withtheissue raised in the Writ Petitions. For better understanding of the case, the relevant rules of the above said Rules are extracted hereunder:

¶83

“2(c) 'Licensing Authority' means the Divisional Forest Officer having jurisdiction over the place of establishment of wood based industry.

¶84

No wood based industry without licence. -

¶85

(1) No person shall install, erect or operate a Wood^Based Industry for cutting, converting or sawing of limber^{withoutobtaining} a licence for such installation from the Licensing Authority.

¶86

(2) No Licence for setting up fresh wood based industry within a distance of 5 KMs., from the boundary of any^forest under control of Forest Department whether notified or not^{shallbegranted} except when it is required for Departmental use.

¶87

(3) The distance of 5 KMs., shall be computed from^topo sheets as of Survey of India as aerial distance as^{crow flies.}

¶88

¶89

(4) The distance restriction as mentioned in sub-rule (2) above will not he applicable to a wood based industry' established in an industrial Estate or a Municipal area.

¶90

4. Application for Licence. ~

¶91

(1) Any person desiring to install or erect or operate a wood based industry shall make an application in Form-I enclosing copies of the following documents:

¶92

(a) Tide deeds or lease deed of the premises or an undertaking by the applicant that the premises of wood based industry are on lease from the land owner.

¶93

(b) Copy of Factory Licence, if any,

¶94

¶95

(d) Copy of Pan Card

¶96

(e) Copy of Aadhar Card of applicant

¶97

(f) Copy of location sketch of the premises

¶98

(g) statement .ndicating the sources of supply of round wood, species and quantity

¶99

Conditions of Licence, Renewal, Transfer etc. -

¶100

m The Licensee should submit renewal application within three months prior to the eepiry of existing Licence.

¶101

(2) If no renewal application i IS submitted to the Licensing Authority upto 31st December, late fee of Rs.2000/- shall be levied upto February succeeding year, irrespective of duration of delay ,f renewal appl,cation is not submitted before the end of February i, Will be deemed that the licence has lapsed and the wood based industry owner should apply for fresh T licence. The security deposit available with the Licensing Authority shall stand forfeited.

¶102

(3) When renewal application ISi made, the Licence holder should enclose proof of submission of abstract of timber accounts, and if the accounts are not furnished, the renewal application shall not be considered by the Licensing Authority.

¶103

¶104

(4) When renewal application is submitted to the Licensing Authority and till renewed Licence is received, the acknowledgement given by the Licensing Authority shall be treated as Licence by inspecting officers

¶105

(5) The licensing authority shall renew the licence after the receipt of permission/ authorization for renewal from^{theStateLevel} Committee. ”

¶106

As per the above rules any person who desires for^the renewal of licence is governed by the AP Wood based Industries (Establishment and Regulations)Rules, 2018 and the procedure therefore is also the same for grant of licence, except^{thefactthatan} existing licence holder is entitled to seek renewal^{ofthelicencethree} months prior to the expiry thereof. The procedure for cancellation/revocation of licence is also comprehensively^dealtwith in the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner^aswellas the learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondent authorities submit that the petitioner submitted possession^certificate at the time of renewal. It may be noted that the petitioner,^whoisthe licence holder, also requires to obtain licence in terms of Rule 4(3) of the Rules. For the sake of clarity. Rule 4(3) of the Rules may be noted hereunder:

¶107

"Every Proprietor of an existing wood based Industry^{shallobtainalicence} from the Licensing Authority within sixty days from the date of publication of these rules and any existing wood based Industry should not be operated beyond sixty days from the date of publication of these^{ruleswithoutavalid} licence under these rules."

¶108

As per the aforesaid Rule, existing licence holder is required to obtain licence from the Licensing Authority within 60 days

¶109

¶110

from the date of publication of the Rules and is prohibited from operating the existing wood based industry beyond 60 days. By this implication, it is for the Licensing Authority to process and grant licence within the stipulated period of 60 days. The petitioner has complied with the guidelines under the said act. The Tahsildhar has erred in issuing possession certificate in favour of Sri Pattapagalu Venkata Rao-respondent No.5, when the claim put-forth by said Respondent 5 is stated to be involved in certain inter se dispute among themselves i.e. respondent No.5 and the petitioner herein, in respect of the transaction said to have been entered between the petitioner and respondent No.5 with regard to sale deed 6573/2012 dt.8-10-2012 vide OS 275/2017 wherein an unregistered^leaseisalso entered into between the parties. Therefore, in that circumstance, at this juncture, though this Court need not advert to the right as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to license, in any event until the rights between the parties is decided in the suit in O.S.No.275/2017, the status quo as it existed will have to continue. Hence, the saw mill license will also have to remain in force subject to the renewal to be made in accordance with law, as and when the license expires. The petitioner has been running sawmill in accordance with rules and the authority has committed an error in not considering the appeal filed by the petitioner depriving him of his right to livelihood. The authority has no ground to refuse the renewal of the license of the existing sawmill. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be allowed.

¶111

¶112

Accordingly, W.P.No. 19256 of 2023 filed for renewal of sawmill license is allowed as the petitioner has been running sawmill in accordance with rules and the authority has committed an error in not considering the appeal filed by the petitioner depriving him of his right to livelihood. The authority has no ground to^{refusetherenewal} of the license of the existing sawmill. Consequently,^W.P.No.2339 of 2023 seeking suspension of saw mill license issued in favour of 6^^^ respondent is dismissed.

¶113

Accordingly, W.P.No. 19256 of 2023 is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the 3^^ respondent dated 06.07.2023 and further the Respondent Nos.2and 3 are directed to renew the license as and when an application is filed by the petitioner seeking renewal, subject to compliance of legal requirements in that regard.

¶114

Hence, W.P.No. 19256 of 2023 is allowed and W.P.No.2339 of 2023 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶115

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶116

Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR cA SECTION OFFICER

¶117

//TRUE COPY//

¶118

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Forest Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, K.M. Munshi Road, Nagararripalem, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. The Chief Forest Officer, Rajamahendrvaram Circle, Rajamahendrvaram East Godavari District. 4. The District Forest Officer, Eluru Forest Division, Eluru West Godavari District. 5. The Forest Range Officer, Rajamahendravaram Range, Opp. Forest Academy, Lala Cheruvu, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, A.P. 6. One CC to Sri Devi Prasad Mangalapuri, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Forests, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. One CC to Sri Almas Mohammed, Advocate (OPUC) 9. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:12/01/2024

COMMON ORDER

WP. No.19256 and 2339 of 2023

¶123

C" '■
i/O rr;;
c/-
Q 5 202H •vt
Current Section
7C

¶124

ISCCf^C^

¶125

ALLOWING THE W.Ps WITHOUT COSTS

Pattapagalu Venkat Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pattapagalu Venkat Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

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

The Nellore City Fruit Merchants Association Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Singamala Chaitanya Krishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tikkana Veera Venkata Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Private B.Ed College Management Association Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. Pothuraju Ramesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

St.Ignatius Girls High School Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh