Remanded

Chinnam Satyanarayana alias Rajura Satyam v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Telangana HC1 Feb 2023WP/22443/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana, exercising powers under Article 226 and inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, set aside an order confirming the confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle and remitted the matter to the Forest Divisional Officer for a fresh hearing after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order confirming confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle is set aside and the matter is remitted to the fourth respondent for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner a reasonable

Chinnam Satyanarayana alias Rajura Satyam Vs The State… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,^{THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYTHREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO:22,143 oF 2020}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Chinnam Satyanarayana^{alias RajuraSatyam, S/o'Peddanna'agedab.out 40} ;;il.1;;id;t ;f^{Rij;vNaga;,Rninapu'r,N irmal District (ErstwhileAdilabad} Distric0, Telangana^State.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telanqana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government'} ' il;ir;;;-ent,'Foieits, Scierice ind rechnblogy Department, Telangana Secretariat, HYderabad^{- 500 022.}

¶12

2.ThePrincipalChiefconservatorofForestsand.HeadoftheForestForce - ti"-ir),'i5t"itgiiG, Aranva Bhavan, Saifabad, Hvderabad - 500 004'

¶13

3.TheConservatorofForests,AdilabadCircle,Adilabad,TelanganaState'

¶14

4.TheAuthorizedOffrcerandForestDivisionalOfficer,Khanapur,Adilabad District, Telangana^State.

¶15

The District^{ForestOfficer,Nirmal District, Nirmal,Telangana State'}

¶16

The Forest Ranqe Officer,^{Khanapur Range,O/o' the Forest Divisional} - Officer, KhanapIr, Adilabad District, Telangana Stiate'

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Atticle^{226of the constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiledtherewith, the High court maybe-} oi""i"a io issue a^{Writ, orderor direction, more particularly one in.the.natureof} !'ilriioil71"nJ"r*s^{declaring the action of third respondent in issuing impugned} oroceeOinqs bearing^{Rc.No.iUatzozonldated 16/10/2020in dismissing appeal} Liiii""^{p?iti"ner-dated24to7t2o2oand affirming the orders of fourth} A;;;;$r-;;thorized^{officers bearinsRc.No.723{20.19-20/K3 dated 02t07t202o} inconfiicating the^{petitioners Tata Vehicte4o7 EX2 Van bearing No.TS18T-1804} ;;;6iilry:'ii"lit'ana^{against the principte.sof naturat justiceand set aside_the} V"niU" i.r" "nO'ionr-"quen1y +OZ EX2^{Van bearing iirect the N..TS18T-1804 together with seized timber respondentsto releasethe petitionersTataby}

¶19

'.'.

¶20

r'.?"

¶21

levyingpenaltyifanyaSperplctjon5gofAndhraPradeshForestoffences iil;;J.ding^{and Piosecution) Rules'1e69'} lA NO:^{1 OF 2020}

¶22

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCpraying.thatinthecircumstancesstated in the^{affidavittireJ'in support of the p"iition, ine Hign court may be pleased to} suspend^{operation- ;i td'impugned FroceeOings. beiringRc'No'234412O2OlA4} dated^{lGtlOtzO2O'iJtrLJ oV'trEthird respondint and the proceedingsbearing} Rc.No.723^{t1ylg-26iki--O"i"OOZtOt1ZOZOissued by fourth respondenV} direct theresponggnlt^{to release the petitionersTata} authorized^officer "nJ"rto vehicle^{407 EX2Va.o""ting No'TS18T-1804 forthwithon any bank guarantee} or any^{othe*no"rt}ii;l;6" frrn[nlO Oy tne petitioner'pending disposalof} tn" ,Oou"^{writ Petition'}

¶23

Counsetfor^{the Petitioner:SRIGUNDRATI RAMANGOUD} Counsel^{for the Respondents:GP FOR FORESTS} The^{Court made the following:ORDER}

¶24

-:i z r;1.j:i*::rd ,.:.--:.4,ti

¶25

, ,rI ,a,'r'Sd 'r,6ffi

' :..-.:

' ,1. 't(i,

r ",::i

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.22443 oF 2o2o

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing impugned proceedings bearing Ref.No.23 44 l2O2O / A4 dared l6.Lo.2o2o in dismissing the appeal confirming the order dated 24.o7.2020 passed by the respondent No.4 vide proceedings No.T23l20t9-2o/K3 clated o2.o7.2o2o in con{iscating the petitioner's Tata vehicle 4o7 Ex2 Van bearing No.TSl8T-1804 as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release rhe. petitioner's vehicle together with seized timber by levying penalty if any as per Section 59 of Andhra Pradesh Foresl- Ofiences (Compouncling ancl Prosecution) Rules, L9'69.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing frx the respondents.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.6 seized the petitioner's vehicle on 30.03.2o19, though he did nor commit any offence as alleged by the respondents and respondent No.4 without giving opportunity to' the petitioner passed confiscation order vide Rc.No.723 /2O19-2O/K3 dated O2.O7.2020 and the same is violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Section 44 of A.P. Forest Act.

¶35

¶36

The learned counsel lor the petitioner further submits that aggricved by the order dated o2.o7.2o2o, the petitioner filed appeal Ref.No.2344 /2o2o I A4 before the Appellate Authority/respondenr No.3. The Respondent No.3 without considering the contentions/grounds raised by the petitioner, dismissed the appeal on 16.'lO.2O2O and confirmed rhe order of respondent No.4.

¶37

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submits that the respondent No.4 after following the due procedure passed the impugned order on 2.O7.2020 and the same was conlirmed by the respondent No.3 f{owever, he submits that grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 has not given reasonable opportunity while passing conliscation order and in view of the same, the matter may be remitted back to respondent No.4 for fresh consideration.

¶38

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after going through the impugned order dated o2.o|.2o2o, it appears that respondent No.4 without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner passed the confiscation'order. The respondent No.3 also without considering the contentions/grounds raised by the petitioner conlirmed the order of the respondent No.4. In view of the same, without going into the merits of the case, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 dated 16.10.2020 conlirming the order of respondent No'4 dated o2.o7.2020, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 is directed to pass orders afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner including personal hearing

.-.4

. :,'s .;:--€

and also considering the objections in accorclance with law,within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The petitioner is also given liberty to submit documents if any and raise all the grounds which are available to him. Till such time, the respondents arc directed not to alienate the petitioner's Tata Vehicle 4OT E,X2 Van bearing No.TS 18T- 1804 which is under the custody of respondents.

¶45

7 Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no orcler as to costs

¶46

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed

¶47

SD'.P.PADMANABHA REDDY i -- aSSSTANT REGISTRAR t .A sEcmoFFrcER^1,,!# ,,*&

¶48

//TRUE COPY,,

¶49

To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Gov^ernment, Environmgrt, Forests, Science and ' i6.findl;gi$firtmefit, tfre State of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hvderabad - 5O0 022.

¶50

tf,;Hncipa^{Cnierconservatorof Forestsand Head of the Forest Force} (i,irri, iSlangani 4ianya B^h?y?n, $?ifapad,^{Hvderabad- 500 004'}

¶51

g. ine Cohserva[oi oi foiedts, Adilabad Clrcle, Adil-abad.,^{Telangana State'} 4. The Authorized biG;^{ilA'rorest oiviaid;i Officer, (hanaprir,Adilabad} District, Telangana^State.

¶52

ih; Distriit fdresiOfficer,^{Nirmal District, Nirmgl, TelanganaSt?t"..} _, 6. if; Foriist ninge^{Officer, Khanapur R?nge,O/o..t!e Forest Divisionat} Offi cer, Kh^a na^{pil r, Adi lqbqd} PLs]ft^{g!'. TSlqngana. State'}

¶53

: .d' ,:...-.iJtI ,:'ffi .,.!

¶54

d;cCio SRlGuuonnrl^RAMANGquDl {dvgcalg1oPt/g1

¶55

ir;; CCsio-Cp^{FOn rOneSTS,High Court for the State of Telangana.}

¶56

f?l'to copies

¶57

¶58

¶59

. :.,1d ','ffi .:}Fryt

¶60

¶61

. ..*t-. "i,.Efrtx '-!ti, .i ::tr.4.,ilt ffi

tii

HIGH COURT

DATED t0110212023

i..-!{

ORDER

WP.No.22443 ot 2020

tHE St4 . t.i
( '.r"$
u
1 B t'lAn 2[23
:i
'^'JE
* * . "., -. '1€,*}
.Ocfn416g
. t4:
,-: '.-:l

¶71

..*

¶72

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶73

g?ff*

¶74

,. ,.- r,d

¶75

.1t I :.s .iS-- .,rtl it

Chinnam Satyanarayana alias Rajura Satyam v. The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnam Satyanarayana alias Rajura Satyam v. The State of Telangana and 5 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

Damera Eliya and 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Mankar Jagadish Vs The State of Telangana

Veeraboina Ramulu Vs The Agency Divisional Officer

M/s. Apex Agro Tech, rep. by its Vs The State of Telangana, rep.

M/s.R.K. Boards and Panels Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal

Sree Sivaram and Company Vs The Government of Telangana