Allowed

M/s. Tirumala Saw Mill v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Apr 2022WP/7139/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging dismissal of an appeal regarding timber transport violation was allowed. The High Court set aside impugned orders for mechanical passage without verifying facts and remanded the matter to the primary authority for afresh proceedings with a proper hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 03.01.2022 and 18.09.2021 set aside; matter remanded to primary authority for afresh proceedings with hearing.

M/s. Tirumala Saw Mill Vs State of Telangana — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 7139 0F 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Tirumala Saw IVill, Lingala Village, Kamepally Mandal, Khammam District, Rep by its Proprietor G. Srinivasa Rao, S/o Narayana, Aged about 60 years, Occ Business, Rl/o. Gate Karepally, Karepally lrrlandal, Khammam District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Environment, Forests, Science and Technology Department, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad - s00029.

¶11

2 The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Head of the Forest Force (HoFF), Telangana, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500004.

¶12

2 The Conservator of Forests, Khammam Circle, Khammam. 4 The Conservator of Forests, Kothagudem Circle, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶13

The District Forest Officer, Khammam District, Khammam.

¶14

The Forest Divisional Offlcer, Khammam District, Khammam.

¶15

7 The Forest Divisional Officer, Yellandu Division, Yellandu, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶16

Forest Range Officer, Karepally.

¶17

I Forest Section Officer, Tallagudem, Nalagonda District.

¶18

,..RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of [\ilandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No.3 in dismissing the appeal in Proc. No. 1749/2003/M5 Dated 0310112022 as ittegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutional, and violate of Articles 1a, 19(g) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia besides being in violation of the provisions of T.S. Transit Rules, 1970 and Telangana Wood based lndustries (Regulations) Rules, 2016 and consequently direct the 6th Respondent to reinstate the license and treat forfeited securiiy deposit as business deposit, thereafter permitting me to carry on with my business as usual.

¶20

IANO:1O F 022

¶21

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition,the Highcourt may be pleasedto} suspend the operation^{of the appeal in Proc.No.1749/2003/M5Daled 0310112022} of the 3rd Respondent^{and subsequently allow the petitioner to carry his} business operations^{pending disposalof the writ petition'}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRl. NAGESHWAR RAO PUJARI} Counsel for the^{Respondent No. 1 to 9 : GP FOR FORESTS} The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶25

WRIT PETITION^{No.7139 of 2022}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned^{counsel appearingon behall of petitioner} and learned Government^{Pleader for Forests appearing on} behalf of respondents.^{With their consent,the present Writ} Petition being^{disposedof at the admission stage itself'}

¶28

Questioning^{the action of the respondent No'3} Conservator of^{Forests, KhammamCircle, Khammatn'} rejecting the^{appealin proceedingsNo'1749/2003/M5dated} 03.01.2022,the^{petitionerhas flledthe present Writ Petition'}

¶29

Learned counsel^{for the petitionerhas drawnthe} attention of this Court^{to the Rules4, 5, 6,7 and 9 of the} TelanganaStateTransitRules,lgT0,tobuttresshiscontention that the official^{respondents withoutverifying the factual} position have^{passed the ordersin a mechanical manner'}

¶30

¶31

,T{R, J W.P No 713S of 2022

¶32

:, '

¶33

A perusal of the show cause notice dated 29.06.2021

¶34

shows that the respondent No.6 - Forest Divisional Officer, Khammam District, Khammam, was of the opinion that on single permit, the petitioner's saw mill was transpofting the timber in two vehicles. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 05.07 .2021 . Thereafter, the respondent No.6 has issued the proceedings dated 18.09.2021. A reading ofthe said proceedings discloses that 151 pieces of teak of various sizes, totally 3.750 cubic meters,, has been transported in two vehicles. That the respondent No.6 only on the ground that there was no permit for the other vehicle and there was only permit for single vehicle bearing No.TS04 UA 3807 vide permit No.336488, has come to the conclusion that the permit and invoice are not tallying and that the teak sizes being transported are finished sizes or rough sizes and there was only permit for one vehicle. Even though the respondent No.6 has come to the said conclusion, there is nothing on record to show that extra teak

¶35

¶36

MR, J W -P.No.7139 of 2022

¶37

material was seized from the petitioner or that the number of pieces were more than 151 nos, for which, valid invoice is there, or that the total quantity seized is more than 3.750 Cubic Meters.

¶38

Even the appellate authority without adhering to the various grounds raised by the petitioner, has passed the order dated 03.01.2022 in a mechanical manner, rvithout verilying as to whether there was any excess teak present or that the teak consisting of more than 151 pieces or more than 3.750 Cubic Meters has been transported by the petitioner in two vehicles or not.

¶39

Even though in the counter, it is stated that the petitioner is involved in illegal transportation of timber, there 15 nO material on record to shou, that anv extra teak material was seized which is more than the one shown in the invoice i.e., 151 teak pieces of 3.750 Cubic Meters. If that is the case, the only allegation that will remain against the petitioner is that he

¶40

¶41

AAR, J W.P.No.7139 o12022

¶42

has transported the said quantity in two vehicles. The quantum of punishment that can be imposed for transporting the teak in two vehicles has to be considered duly taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner, which is obviously missing, in the orders passed by the respondent No.6 and that of the respondent No.3. It appears that the authorities concerned were bent or.r passing the order holding that the petitioner is transporting more teak than what was permitted without properly veriflring the factual aspects. The impugned order does not reveal that any extra material was found i.e., the extra pieces of wood or the extra quantity of wood that was seized by the authorities. In view of the same, both the orders have to be necessarily set aside and the matter be remanded back to the primary authority to pass orders afresh.

¶43

Having regard to the above, this Writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 03.01 .2022 and 18.09.2021 passed by the primary and appellate authotities are hereby set aside and the

¶44

¶45

AAR, J W.P.No.7139 of 2022

¶46

matter is remanded back to the^{respondentNo.6 for passing} orders afresh duly^putting the^{petitioneron notice and giving} an opportunity of hearing and taking into consideration^the explanation submitted by the petitioner. It is^needlessto observe that the petitioner is entitled^{to continue the operation} of the saw mi1l, till such time the^{fresh ordersare passedby the}

¶47

respondent No.6.

¶48

Miscellaneous applications, if any^{pending,shallstand}

¶49

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

SD/.P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTBAR , sEcroN #r".* I

¶52

To,

¶53

The Principal Secretary, Environment, Forests, Science and Technology Department, State of Telangana, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad - 500029.

¶54

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Head of the Forest Force (HoFF), Telangana, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500004.

¶55

The Conservator of Forests, Khammam Circle, Khammam.

¶56

The Conservator of Forests, Kothagudem Circle, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶57

The District Forest Officer, Khammam District, Khammam.

¶58

¶59

The Forest Divisional Officer, Khammam District, Khammam.

¶60

The Forest Divisional Officer, Yellandu Division, Yellandu, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶61

Forest Range Officer, Karepally.

¶62

Forest Section Officer, Tallagudem, Nalagonda District.

¶63

10.One CC to SRl. NAGESHWAR RAO PUJARI, Advocate IOPUCI

¶64

I 1. Two CCs to GP FOR FORESTS, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶65

¶66

12.Two CD Copies.

¶67

One Spare Copy.

JS MMA N$

I l

1 HIGH COURT I

DATED :2810412022

1E
'7
r,
.$'
Lj)
tloF \ s*
*
J t-i o t<br>

¶73

ORDER

¶74

WP.No.7139 of 2022

¶75

ALLOWING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶76

M/s. Tirumala Saw Mill v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Tirumala Saw Mill v. State of Telangana

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

Ch. Linga Reddy Vs The Principal Secretary

Karnati Pichi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 10 Others

Narra Babu Rao and 4 others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Pola Vinod Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs.Aruna Devi Oberoi Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Vidya Singh Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others