Dismissed

Rodda Ravi Kumar v. The Government of India and 5 Others

Telangana HC2 Dec 2022WP/31667/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 31667 of 2022 after the counsel for the petitioner submitted the withdrawal of the petition, noting that the action of the factory regarding expansion without amenities was challenged but the case was subsequently withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on withdrawal of the writ petition. No order as to costs.

Rodda Ravi Kumar Vs The Government of India and 5 Others — Telangana HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[^32e5 ]

¶2

I I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Originat Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN THE HONOURABLE SRI I'ff'?CE C,V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT P ETITION N O: 31667 O F 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Rodda Ravi Kumar. S/o Rodda Ramesh, Aged about 35 years, Occ. private F$jl"rr,",,? #fi.,|"urr,,^{vitr"gu,K;;iilt"rr,r?,i3r, rii."r,t,,"r"oi"i,ili}

¶10

AND

¶11

,..PETITIONER

¶12

The Government of ln-dia, Ministry of .Environment, Forest and Climate ?i;Jffi R/o I nd ira^paryavaian e r.,i;rr.,, l"i'eri r.r'n"ib, nr i.g:;rlt li,i:,;rj:jifi i:

¶13

2 Chairman, centrar porution contror Board, parivesh Bhawan, ced-cumoffice Comptex, East Arjun ru"gu1, N;*-D'Jiii r i ooizz.

¶14

Chairman Telanoana pollution. Control Board, Nhos, Mof Colony, Rc Reddy Colony, Ram Chindra eurir, Hyj"irdrffi02b3):"

¶15

4 Shri shyam B. Asawa. president- projeers, M/s. orient cement Limited. 5-g2nd Ftoor, Gp Birta Gnjr", H;;h'il;s; Hyderabad, reransana_

¶16

AB6t.Jg

¶17

Mr. D.D. Khetraoal (Managing_Director and CEO), New Delhi_1.1000), Orient cem e nt I i m ited, i3 irta' ro*ei, z's, ria r-a [; #;""fi;d, New Deth i_ 1 1 00 0 i

¶18

6 Mr' Shri shiva kanth pandey(. president works), orrentar cement comDanv Limited, Devapur, (M) Kasipei,'Ma".r,"iiir il;[.l;li iOcZfi

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ decraring the action of the respondent No'4, in pursuant to the expanding the factory without providing the amenities

¶21

¶22

which are agreed as per the action plan MoEF and cc o.M. Dated 06/ost2o21 in the En. ironmentar crearance No. F.No.J-1 1011/266tzoo7-rA il (1) is nothing but arbitrary, illegar, nu[ and void and viorative of constitution of rndia.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 22

¶24

Petition under section 'rs1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent No.3 in pursuant to the action plan MoEF and CC O.M. Dated 06/05/2021 in the Environmentar crearance No. F.No.J-1.1011r266t2007lA ll (l) to execute the works which were agreed by the Respondent No.4. counser for the petition", ,'.tl^.f..5fi i:ftff t:--

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.,t: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA.

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents No.2 and 3 : SRI p.SHlVA KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL FOR TSPCB

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondents No.4 to 6 : NONE APPEARED

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHIIYAN

¶30

AND

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.31667 of 2022

¶33

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

¶34

Heard Mr. A.Praveen Babu, learned counsel representing

¶35

Mr. K.R.Sunil Kumar, learned for the^petitioner.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits^on

¶37

instructions that petitioner wants to withdraw the writ^petition

¶38

Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed on withdrawal.

¶39

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ

¶41

Petition sha]l stand closed.

¶42

¶43

¶44

SD/. C.PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT RE6ISTRAR '1,.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 9n"^{CC to SRt K.R.SUN|LKUMAR,} Advocate tOpUCl z p1e. p-C to Sri Gadi praveen xumrr,'o"prtv-b;i;it;, cenerat of tndia (oPUC)

¶49

One CC to Sri p.SHtVA KUMAR, Standing counset for TSpCB (OPUC) 4. Two CD Cooies BSK

SW %

HIGH COURT

DATED:02112t2022

ORDER

t ,-. a SIA rt'
J(
-) +<br>.J 2 B JAll 2023
.r.{-!:

¶55

WP.No.31667 ot 2022

¶56

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WTHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

v
Mto
o'
CO

Rodda Ravi Kumar v. The Government of India and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rodda Ravi Kumar v. The Government of India and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Santoshi Vs Telangana State Human Rights Commission

The Hyderabad State Film Chamber of Commerce, Vs The Government of a.P., rep. byits Secretary

G.Vikramsimha Reddy Vs Dwarapogu Prabhakar

M/s Lakshmi Vessels Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs Om Prakash Jakhotia

M/s. Power Solutions Vs The State of Telangana