Dismissed

Gopi Transport v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Dec 2023WP/26847/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposing of two writ petitions filed by a waste transporter regarding illegal waste collection in Dundigal. The High Court directed police authorities to act on a complaint submitted by the petitioner and take strict legal action.

What did the court decide?

The High Court directed the police respondents to act upon the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 08.08.2023 and take appropriate action strictly in accordance with the law.

Gopi Transport Vs State of Telangana — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[^32s6 ]

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF^DECEMBER

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V. BHASKAR REDDY} WRIT PETITION NOs: 26847 &^{32999 0F 2023}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 26847^{OF 2023}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gopi Transport, represented by^{its Proprietor,ManupaduGopi,S/o} tr,4.Balaiah, aged about 40^{years,'Occ. Bio-waste Transport Contractor, R/o.} H.No.2-1-1126'1, Janmabhoomi Colony,^{Kukatpally,Hyderabad.}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1- State of Telangana, Represented^{by its Principal Secretary, Home (Police)} Department, Secreteriat, Hyderabad

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad. 3. The Station House Officer, Dundigal^{Police Station, Dundigal, Medchal-} Ivlalkajgiri District.

¶14

4- Dundigal tt/unicipality, Represented by^its Commissioner,^{Dundigal,Ivledchal-} IVlalkajgiri District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue writ order or directiorl one the writ of mandamus^declarethe action of the 3rd Respondent in not^preventing iltegal^{collectionand} transportation of chicke n/mutto^n/fis h^{waste by unauthorized personsand firms} within the^jurisdiction of Dundigal Municipality and not^{registeringcrime against} the persons and firms who are unauthorisedly^{Iifting the ch icken/m utto n/f ish} waste as per the complaint lodged by the 4th Respondent^{as illegal and arbitrary} and contrary to Section 52,^{125, 130 of Telangana [VunicipalitiesAct, 2019 and} Environment (Protection) Act,^1S86and Solid Waste^{ManagementRules,2016}

¶17

and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to take action against the individuals and frrms who are unauthorisedly collecting Chicken waste within the jurisdiction of Dundigal Municipality.

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent to take action on the complaint lodged by the 4th Respondent on 24-06-2023 and^prevent illegal collection and transportation of Chicken Waste and its disposal in implementation of provisions of Telangana lVlunicipalities Act, 2019 and Environment (Protection) Act,^'198G and Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016^pending final disposal of main Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.RAMA SUBBA RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l to 3: AGP FOR HOME

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI B.JAGAN MADHAV RAO, SC FOR MCPL

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO: 32999 OF 2023

¶24

Between:

¶25

9_Tri^{Transport, represented by its Proprietor, Manupadu Gopi, S/o.} M.Balaiah, aged about 40 years, Occ. Bio-waste Transport Contractoi, R/o. H.No.2-1 -Jl281, Janmabhoomi Colony, Kukatpally, Hyder'abad.

¶26

,.,PETITIONER

¶27

AND

¶28

State of Telargana, Represented by its^principal Secretary, Home (police) Depaltment, Secreteriat, Hyderabad

¶29

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

¶30

The Station House Officer, Dundigal^police Station, Dundigal, tr/edchal' Malkajgiri District.

¶31

Dundigal lvunicipality, Represented by its commissioner, Dundigal, I/ledchaltr/alkajgiri District.

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

,./' Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled therewith, fhe High Court may be pleased to declare the action of the 3rd Respondent in not registering the crime on the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 08-08-2023 and preventing illegal collection and transportation of chicken/mutton/fish waste by unathorised persons and firms within the jurisdiction of Dundigal L4unicipality as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to Section 52, 125, 130 of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Solid Waste fvlanagement Rules, 2016 by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction more parlicularly in the nature of Mandamus and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to take action against the individuals and firms who are unauthorisedly collecting chicken waste within the jurisdiction of Dundigal Municipality.

¶34

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶35

Petition under section 1s1 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent to take action on the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 08-08-2023 and prevent illegal collection and transportation of chicken waste and its disposal in implementation of provisions of relangana Municipalities Act, 20.19 and Environment (Protection) Act,^'1986 and solid waste Management Rules 2016 pending final disposal of main Writ petition.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt K.RAMA SUBBA RAO

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: AGp FOR HOME

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI B.JAGAN MADHAV RAO,

¶39

SC FOR MCPL

¶40

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶41

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASI{AR REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.26847 e,32999 of 2o23 COMMON ORDER:

¶42

The petitioner herein is engaged in the business of collection of chicken, mutton and fish waste. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4/municipality being the competent authority for issuance of trade licences for running the chicken, mutton and fish shops and for collection and safe disposal of waste materia.l from chicken, mutton and fish shops in its jurisdiction under the provisions of the Telangana Sate Municipalities Act as well as the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, in order to safeguard the public from health hazards, called for tenders for collection of waste material from chicken, mutton and fish shops from the agencies in its jurisdiction and the petitioner was awarded contract vide proceedings bearing No.E1/Collection Waste/2022-23 dated 27 .O3.2023. Tl-e further case of the petitioner is that in terms of the said contract, even though the petitioner is authorised to collect chicken, mutton and fish waste from the shops, the shop owners who are running the business

¶43

¶44

of chicken, mutton and fish, by obtaining trade iicences from the municipality, are not allowing the petitioner to collect the waste material thereby causing great loss to the petitioner and furthermore, the waste material is being dumped on the roads which is not only causing nuisance but also health hazards to the inhabitants of th e loca-lity, which constrained the petitioner to submit a comptaint dated 08.08 .2023 to the respondents police for taking stringent action against those shop owners. The grievance of the petitioner in these writ petitions is that even after receipt of the said complaint, the respondents police are not registering any case against those shop owners much less they are preventing the illegal collection and tralsportation of chicken, mutton and fish waste by unauthorised persons.

¶45

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Home.

¶46

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents police to act upon the complaint dated

¶47

)

¶48

08.08.2023 lodged by the petitioner and take appropriate

¶49

action strictly in accordance with law.

¶50

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶51

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

SD/. V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// v

¶53

¶54

SECTION OFFTCER

¶55

'1. The Principar Secretarv, Home (porice) Department, secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶56

The Commissioner of police, Cyberabad.

¶57

The Station House officer, Dundigar porice station, Dundigar, MedcharMalkajgiri District.

¶58

O lLir,.?"rrissioner, Dundigal IVlunicipatity, Dundigat, Medchat_tr/atkajgiri

¶59

One CC to SRt K.RAIUA SUBBA RAO, Advocate tOpUCl

¶60

One CC to SRt B.JAGAN IMADHAV RAO, SC FOR MCPL tOpUCl

¶61

Two CCs to Gp FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶62

Two CD Copies

BSR

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211212023

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.26847 & 32999 of 2023

¶68

1 H E s IA
oR
3" 10 IANWI z
-9
* .dtt
*
Dc
SPATC HEO

¶69

DISPOSING OF tsOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

(oQ-2
w %

Gopi Transport v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi Transport 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

Syed Saeed Mohiuddin Aasim Vs State of Telangana

Dargupally Jayender Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Yerram alias Arram Laxmi Vs Sri Pale Maruthi Prasad

Ajmira Lakhupati Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Qutubuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Iqubal Chakkanaparambil Vs The State of Telangana