Dismissed

M/s. Nakoda Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India and 2 Others

Telangana HC7 Dec 2021WP/12816/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Commonly disposed of connected writ petitions and interim applications filed by M/s Nakoda Chemicals Ltd. seeking environmental clearance for expansion. The petitions were dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner's counsel during argument before the bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice N. Tukaramji on December 7, 2021.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the petitions and interim applications as withdrawn.

M/s. Nakoda Chemicals Ltd. Vs Union of India and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE^{SEVENTHDAYOF DECEIVBER} TWO THOUSAND^ANDTWENTYONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} ' AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTICEN. TUKARAMJI}

¶6

r.A.NO.2 oF^{202OINW PNO:12816 0F 2020}

¶7

AND

¶8

w.P.NOS.^{12816 AND33} 0^{6 0F 2020}

¶9

wP NO,12816^{0F 2020:}

¶10

Between:

¶11

Ivl/s.NakodaChemicalsLtd.,PlotNo'64/Aand65/8'Phase-llDA'Jeedimetla'rillediri"i'oi.^{n"p- bv iiabiretorSri' RAJKUMAR AGRAWAL} ...pE,,oNER

¶12

AND

¶13

Union of lndia,^{rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment'Forest and-Climate} Change Agni^{Wing-azi,-+tnfr"di,ihairaPdryavaran Bhawan Jor Bagh Road'} New Delhi-1 10 003.

¶14

The state^{Environment lmpact Assessment Authority Telanganastate, A-3} lndustrial Estate,^{sanaih rtigan FlyderaUad 500 018 Rep by its Member} Secretary.

¶15

Secretary.

¶16

a. i[!'iljllis"na^{State Pollution controlBoard' Sanathnagar' Hyderabad-18Rep} by its Member^Secretary. ...RES'.NDENTS

¶17

...RES'.NDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article^{226 ol the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} cirCUmstanCesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybepleased toissueanappropriateWrit,moreinthenatureofWritofMandamusdeclaringthe actionoftheRespondentsinnotconsideringtheApplicationofthePetitionerfor expansion dated^{08/09/2016 in terms of the Provisionsof Notificationof Ministry of} Environment,^{Forest and Climate Change' Notification S'O 1223(E)dated 27th} March,2020,whileextendingthesametotheothersimilarlyplacedUnits'asbeing arbitraryandillegaloffendingArticlel4andlg(1Xg)oftheConsititutionoflndiaand consequentlydirecttheRespondentstoforthwithpassordersontheapplicationfor grantofEnvironmentalClearancemadebythepetitionervideon|ineapplication dated 08/09/2016^{in terms of Notifications.o.1223(E) dated 27thMarch, 2020}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶20

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Courtmaybe pleasedto issuea} direction to the^{Respondentsto forthwith considerthe expansion applicationof the} petitioner dated 08/09/2016,^{in terms of the provisionS of S.o,1233(E)Ministryof} Environment,ForestandClimateChangeNotification'dated2TthMarch'2020' pending Writ Petition

ll^NAi2-AEZA29

,/ Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in s rpport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, nore in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring he action of the Respondents ir rejecting the application of the petitioner Cated 08/09/2016 for expansion in terms o the provisions of circular of IMoEF and cc, n s.o.. 1223(E), dated 2710312020, cr mmunicated through the letter of the Respondent No.2,dated 0710912020 in Lr.No. t/TSpcB. EC/SEtAA/genera/2o14, white extending the benefit to the other similarly clace units; as being arbitrary and illegal violating Articles .14 and 19 (1) (9) of the )onstitution of rndia and consequentry direct the Respondents to forthwith grant Ec for Expansion interms of the Notif ica lion o. 1223 (E) dated 2710312020 and issue such other writ, order or direction as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of he case

¶25

Counsel for the Petiti rner: SRI CH SAMSON BABU

¶26

Counsel for Responc :nt No. 1i SRI N. RAJESHWAR RAO ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶27

Counsel for Respond lnt Nos. 2 & 3: SMT. PADMAJA R. N.,

SC FOR TSPCB

WP NO: 3306 OF 202t

Between:

M/s Nakoda lhemicats Ltd.,, plot No.64/4 and 65/8, phase_l tDA, Jeedimefla,Ranr a Reddy Dt. Rep. by its Direror sri. nnJr<urr,rAR nondrinr_ AND ...PET|IONER

¶32

union of lndia,, -'p. by its Secretary, rt/inistry of Environment, Forest and crimate Change.Agni W, tg-+z+.4th Floor lhair:a iaryavaran Bhawan'ioi eiirh R"ra. New Delhi-1 10 ,03.

¶33

The state Envift nment.rmpact Assessment Authority, Terangana State, A-3 lndustrial Estate Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad 500 01fi nep.Oy-iii tv;;b;,^{' -} Secretary.

¶34

3 Telangana Stat€^poilution contror Board., Rep.by its [r,4embe- Secretarv. A-3 lndustrial Estate Sanathnagar. HyderabaO SOO Cife-^{'''- -vvvvivLvi'' r '}

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

Petition under \rticle 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated r the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriat r Writ, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respon rents in not considering the expansion proposars of the Petitioner on the assr xption that the petitioner's is a case of vioration though no violation case is endir 7 presenfly and despite a crarification to that extent is given by 1st Respondent th? t no public hearing is the required and the further action of the Respondents in r rrding the expansion proposars on the pretext of seeking clarifications from Mini ttry as being arbitrary and ilregar viorative of Articles 14 and 19 (1Xg) of the consl tution of lndia and consequenfly direct the Respondents to pass orders on the ap llication for grant of Environmentar crearance made by the petitioner without insist ng on any public hearing

¶37

-'- 3

¶38

ition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to issue a direction to the Respondents to forthwith consider the expansion application of the petitioner, pending Writ Petition

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH SAMSON BABU

¶40

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI N. RAJESHWAR RAO ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶41

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SMT. PADMAJA R. N., SC FOR TSPCB

¶42

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶43

\.-- <

¶44

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHTIRMA

¶45

AND

¶46

¶47

I^{IE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEN.} TUXARAMJI

¶48

t,l ,No.2 of 2O2O in W.P.No.12816 of 2020

¶49

¶50

W.P.Nos. 12816 and 3306 of 2020

¶51

COMMON OR DE,R: p", tn" uon'ate the chjef rustice satish chandra sh(1rma)

¶52

Learnec counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present w it petitions as also I.A.No.2 of 2O2O in W.p.No.12816 of 2O2O.

¶53

Both th writ petitions and I.A.No.2 of 2O2O in W.p.No. 12816 of 2O2O are a< :ordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

¶54

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sha11 stand

¶55

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

//TRUE COPY'

¶57

SD/-T,TIRUMALA DEVI ASSIST/\NT REGISTRAR ,--'

¶58

\ \

¶59

SETCTION OFFICER

¶60

To, 1. One CC to Sri )h Samson Babu Advocate IOPUC] 2. One CC to Sri lamavarapu Rajeswara Rao, Assistant Solicitor General (OPUC) 3. One CC to Sm Padmaja R. N., SC for TSPCB (OPUC) 4. Two CD Copie 5. One Spare Co1 y IVBC SW v

¶61

HIGH COURT

¶62

DATED: 0711212021

¶63

1 ?c erA I'E o <br>&
2 I Dtc 20ii
..* .r/
t

¶64

COMMON ORDER

¶65

l.A NO.2 OF 2020!N WP^{NO: 12816 OF 2020} AND W.P.NOS.12816 AND^{3306 0F 2020}

¶66

DIS MISSING THE IA & WP AS WITHDRAWN,

¶67

WITHOUT COSTS

¶68

/
?)
\ )"<br>

M/s. Nakoda Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Nakoda Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Eshwaraiah Vs The State of Telangana

The Deputy Managing Director and Corporate Development Officer Vs Chimata Sudhakar

Mr. Adimulapu. Raja Vikram Vs The Chief Secretary

The State of Telangana Vs Ashok Singati

M/s Nakoda Chemicals Ltd., Vs Union of India

Dr P Krishna Malakonda Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others