Allowed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. M/s Sri Srinivasa Saw Mill and Timber Depot, Madira

Telangana HC20 Nov 2012WA/1436/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.A. No. 1436 of 2012, the Andhra Pradesh High Court restored a writ petition regarding a timber depot license to the Divisional Forest Officer, directing the authority to decide the matter after hearing parties and passing a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Single Judge set aside; matter remanded to Divisional Forest Officer, Khammam Division, to decide after hearing parties and passing reasoned order.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs M/s Sri… — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT APPEAL NO.1436 OF 2012

¶3

Dt: 20-11-2012.

¶4

Between: THE GOVT. OF A.P. REP. BY THE SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS & SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS .. APPELLANT

¶5

AND M/S.SRI SRINIVASA SAW MILL AND TIMBER DEPOT, MADIRA REP. BY ITS OWNER SRI.Y.NAGESWARA RAO D.NO.10/123, AZAD ROAD, MADIRA, KHAMMAM DISTRICT .. RESPONDENT

¶6

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO.1436 OF 2012

¶8

JUDGMENT: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

¶9

This writ appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 26^th March, 2012 passed by the Hon’ble single Judge in W.P.No.6406 of 2012, which was filed by the writ petitioner/respondent herein praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s request for grant of Timber Depot license vide orders issued in Rc.No.617/2011/M5 dated 23.2.2012 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to Rules, 2(1)(vii), 3 and 4 of the A.P. Forest Produce (Storage & Depot) Rules, 1989 and hold that the petitioner is entitled for grant of Depot license for the current year upto 31.3.2012 and for a common license as per Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 of the A.P. Forest Produce (Storage & Depot) Rules, 1989 within the existing premises.

¶10

The Hon’ble single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, allowed the writ petition quashing the order dated 23.2.2012 passed by the 3^rd respondent therein and directed the 4^th respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Khammam Division, who is the licensing authority, to grant necessary licence to the petitioner for starting depot for storage of forest produce including teak and non-teak to the petitioner under Rule 4(1) of the A.P.Forest Produce (Storage and Depot) Rules, 1989.

¶11

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the Hon’ble single Judge, the State has filed this writ appeal.

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on a suggestion being put forward by them before us, we accept the same and set aside the impugned order so passed by the Hon’ble single Judge and direct the matter to be referred to the Divisional Forest Officer, Khammam Division, Khammam District, who will decide the matter, after giving a chance of being heard to the parties, and shall pass a reasoned order in the matter. Liberty is also granted to the parties to file additional documents before the authorities, as prayed for.

¶14

In the result, this writ appeal is allowed. No costs.

¶15

( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ )

¶16

( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,

¶17

J )

¶18

Dt: 20-11-2012.

¶19

TNB

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. M/s Sri Srinivasa Saw Mill and Timber Depot, Madira

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. M/s Sri Srinivasa Saw Mill and Timber Depot, Madira

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

D.Narsimlu Vs The Commissioner

Human Rights Council, Vs The Government of India

Human Rights Council, Regd.No. 986/99, Vs The Government of India

Bellapukonda Hari Krishna, S/o. Nageswara Rao Vs Bellapukonda Mayuri, D/o Harikrishna

V.Radha Krishna Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Challa Ram Reddy Vs The Government of India