Disposed

Mudimyal Kancha v. Prl.,Secy., Forest Dept., and 3 Others

Telangana HC29 Nov 2017WP/38944/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's online representation regarding forest proposal submissions within four weeks, communicating the decision within a week, ensuring compliance with legal procedure.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's online representation within four weeks and communicate the decision within a week.

Mudimyal Kancha Vs Prl.,Secy., Forest… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.38944 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed

¶5

seeking the following relief:

¶6

“ …to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the 3^rd respondent in submitting the proposals with specific recommendations to the 2^nd respondent along with the information in check slip and uploading information pertaining to the Part-II of the proposals in the Minister’s website (www.forestclearance.nic.in) and furnished the attested copy of the acknowledgment slip with the proposals pursuant to the letter of the 2^nd respondent dt.14-3-2016 bearing Rc.no.2657/2016/FCA2 and in spite of the approval of the proposal by the 4^th respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent herein to forthwith comply with the directions of the 2^nd respondent vide letter dt.14-3-2016 bearing Rc.No.2657/2016/FCA2 as expeditiously as possible by fixing reasonable time, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

¶7

[Reproduced verbatim]

¶8

2 . Heard Sri Zulfaquar Alam , learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Forest appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. I have perused the material record.

¶9

3 . At the hearing, reiterating the pleadings in the writ petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invites the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest/ Head of Forest Force, in Rc.No.2657/ 2016/ FCA2 and submits that despite such proceedings, there is inaction on the part of the 3^rd respondent in submitting the proposals with specific recommendations to the 2^nd respondent along with the information in check slip and also in uploading information pertaining to the Part-II of the

¶10

2 MSRM, J W.P.No.38944 of 2017

¶11

proposals in the Minister’s website and in furnishing the attested copy of the acknowledgment slip with proposals pursuant to the letter of the 2^nd respondent, dated 14.03.2016, in spite of approval of the proposal by the 4^th respondent.

¶12

4 . Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the request of the petitioners cannot be considered as nearby this reserve forest, many agricultural fields are existing in Malkapur village and that there is an unauthorised cart track which is being used by the villagers to reach their agricultural lands since long time back and that the Forest Department is not objecting for the same, since the villagers are using the same since a long time and also at present; and, that if the proposed area is diverted, the forest block will be further got divided into small patches; and that already due to right of way, aforesaid forest area is divided into small bits; and, therefore, further diversion will divide the forest area in to further small bits, and that, therefore, it is not possible to allow any diversion.

¶13

5 . In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that if the representation submitted through online is considered and disposed of by the 3^rd respondent, the ends of justice would be met.

¶14

6 . Learned Government Pleader would submit that the representation submitted by the petitioner online will be considered and disposed of, in accordance with the procedure established by law.

¶15

7 . Recording the submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner (submitted through online) in strict accordance with the procedure established by law, however, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and communicate the decision taken thereon within a week thereof.

¶16

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

MSRM, J W.P.No.38944 of 2017

¶18

¶19

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

__________________ M.Seetharama Murti, J

¶21

29.11.2017

¶22

Note:- Issue CC by 30.11.2017 (B/ o) RAR

¶23

MSRM, J W.P.No.38944 of 2017

¶24

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.38944 of 2017

¶27

29-11-2017

Mudimyal Kancha v. Prl.,Secy., Forest Dept., and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mudimyal Kancha v. Prl.,Secy., Forest Dept., and 3 Others

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

S Sharada and Another, Vs Prls.Ecy., Energey Dept., Hyd., and 3 Others

Dasari Sharada, Warangal,and Anr. Vs the State of Ts.,Energy,Hyderabad,and 3 Otrs.

Silver Oak Bunglaw Owners Assn Vs Chairman Shri T.Chiranjeevululu and 6 Others

Kota Kalyani, Vs Prl.Secy., Ma., Andud Dept., Hyd., and Another

M Sindu Priya, Warangal Dist and 1 Other Vs the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Fazal Ahmed Khan, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary