Dismissed

Rudrapratap Indian Logistics (Hyderabad) Private Limited v. Union of India and 3 Others

Telangana HC20 Jul 2023WP/33293/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the non-issuance of environmental clearance was dismissed by the Telangana High Court after the petitioners were granted permission to withdraw the petition.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the petition was accorded, and accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn without costs.

Rudrapratap Indian Logistics… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I^3368l

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH^{DAYOF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF^{JUSTICEABHINANO KUMAR SHAV]LI} AND HON'BLE SRt JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶7

WRIT PETITI ON NO:^{33293 0F202'.1}

¶8

Between:-

¶9

Between:-^{- --' -} Rudrapratap lndian Logistics (Hyderabad)-Private- Limited, having its. office at tvtooi House ll, sth floo-r, Oppirsite^{RTO tiffice, off Eastern} -ExPrels^Highway' , tnane TriPathi (Westi Maharashtrb^{- 400602,representedby Shri.Rudrapratap}

¶10

...PETrroNER

¶11

AND

¶12

Union of lndia, Rep. by its^{Member Secretary} ,^{Ministry of Envirorment,} Forests and Climaie Chanqe,^{(MoEF & CC) Department, lndira Paryavaran} Bhavan, Jorbagh Road, Jorbagh,^{NewDelhi-110003.}

¶13

z. State of Tehngiana, Rep.^{by PiincipalSecretary lndustries and Commerce} Deoartment. Sicreiariai Buildinqs,^{Saifabad, Hyderabad-500004.}

¶14

a. Stite tevet Environmental^{lmpadt Assessment Authority,Repby its Member} Secretary^{(TSPCB)Paryavar'anBhavan, A3 lndustrial Estate, Sanathnagar'} Hvderabid. Telanoana State^{-50001 8}

¶15

+. ftietelansana St5te^{Pollution Control Board, Rep by its. Member.Secretary} Parvavarai Bhavan, 43^{lndustrial Estate Sanathnagar,Hyderabad,} Tel6ngana State - 500018

¶16

...RES'ONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of^{the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filedtherewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ,^{order, or direction more particularly, one in} the nature of writ of^{Mandamus, declaringthe action of the Respondents in} deferring the issuance^{of environmentalclearance vide its letterdated} o4logt2o21 in respect^{of Petitionersproject admeasuring 28 Acres in Survey} Nos. 518, 527 , 528 to^{530 situatedat Kishtapur Village, Medchal Municipality} and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajigiri^{District, as illegal,arbitrary, malafide'} colourable exercise^{of power, violativeof Article 300-Aof the constitution of} lndia,andcontrarytotheprovisionsofEnvironmentalActandrulesmadethere under

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under St ;t on¹ 51 CPC^praying that^{in the circ:r'tstztncesstated} in the affidavit filed in s rpport of the^{petition, the High Crurt nte y} b:^{pleased to} direct the Respondent to forthwith release the^{envircnrne rt,:l r;learancein} respect Petitioner s^{pro rlot admeasuring 28 Acres in Survey No,,. 518, 527} ,⁵²⁸ to 530 situated at Kisht^{pur Village,[Vledchal Municipalitl'and M andal, Iiiledchal-} Malkajigiri District, for c^rrstruction of sheds^{/ warehousesin} 'tt^{e aforementioned} property, as approverd by Respondent No.3 in its Minutes ct l,4,:eting dated 1610312021 in the interre ;t of^justice, as^prayed for in the erccornpr'rnying^Petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitio rer: SRl. SHIREEN SETHNA BARIA

¶21

Counsel for the Respo rdent No.1: SRl. GADI^{PRAVEENKUMr\Fl,} DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF ll'lDlA

¶22

Counsel for the Respo rdent No. 2: GP FOR INDUSTRIES^{ANtr r::Ol\TIMERCE} Counsel for the Respo rdent No. 3&4: SRl. P. SHIV KUMAR^{. SiC: FCIRTSPCB} The Court made the fo owing: ORDER

¶23

¶24

¶25

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF WSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPI,' RAJESHWAR RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.33293 OF 2O2l

¶27

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

¶28

Leamed counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court

¶29

to withdraw the Writ Petition.

¶30

Permission is accorded.

¶31

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There

¶32

shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition, shall

stand closed.

ASsrsTAF#VE5frYIlA

/TTRUE^COPY"

SECfi6N^OFFICER

To,

lwn$t,$,',+n:'***Yifrfrsu:r::' BM

GJP

HIGH COURT DATED:2010712r't23

¶44

:'
./'l -.,:>1 l.
I I I ri N[ li,'
<br>: :I

¶45

ORDER

¶46

WP.No.33293 cf 2021

¶47

DISMISSING T.IE WRIT PETITION AS WITHT)RAWN WITHOUT COS TS

¶48

(9Gt18 $q-.ar\q"

Rudrapratap Indian Logistics (Hyderabad) Private Limited v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudrapratap Indian Logistics (Hyderabad) Private Limited v. Union of India and 3 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

Chimata Karunakar Vs The State of Telangana

Kolisetty Koushal, Vs The State of Telangana

S. Anil Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Mallepally Lalitha Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Mr Asif Shaikh Vs Union of India

Bolagani. Venkata Raghavendra Rao Vs The State of Telangana