Allowed

Smt.S.Swapna v. Telangana State Pollution Control Board

Telangana HC21 Jun 2023WP/44866/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order revoking a closure notice for a stone crusher unit. The court held that the authorities violated natural justice by acting without giving the complaining owner an opportunity to be heard before reversing the prior closure order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.11.2022 temporarily revoking the closure order is set aside; Writ petition disposed of.

Smt.S.Swapna Vs Telangana State Pollution Control… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3311]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:44866 OF 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt.S.Swapna, W/o: Madasu Venkata Prasad, aged about 42 years, Occ. Business, r/o H.No. 7-1-G9, Plot No.G-9, Panchavati Colony, Road No.5-F, Manikonda, Hyderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND )

¶13

Telangana State Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its [/ember Secretary, Paryavaran Bhavan, A-lll, lndustrial Estate, Sanatnagar, Hyderabad

¶14

The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer Telangana State Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office, 25-35/1 1, Tulasi Reddy Complex 2nd Floor, Opp. Govt lvl College, R.C.Puram Sangareddy District.

¶15

J. M/s Sree Balaji Metals, , rep. by its Partner, Mr. llla Nalini Mohan s/o Chitti Naidu r/o Flat No.501, Plot No.1383'1384 and 1385, Brindavan Heights, Apurupa Colony, Pragathi Nagar, Qutbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶16

IVlr. llla Nalini Mohan, S/o: Chitti Naidu, aged major, rio Flat No.501, Plot No.'1383 1384 and 1385, Brindavan Heights, Apuruira Colony, Pragathi Nagar, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ivledchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent bearing No.SRD 344ITSPCB/TFlHOl2O22-1225 dt. 12-11-2022 revoking the closure orders issued by the 2nd respondent bearing No.SRD508/TSPCB/20-IRCPlLHl2022-217 dl. 19-10-2022, without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and contrary to the CFO conditions and in violation of principles of natural^justice and consequently set aside the same, and to grant.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr. umstances stated in the affidavit filed ir r;upport of the petition, the High Cour:^-nay be pleased to suspend the inrpugr'r ,ro orders passed by the lst resl)ondenl bearing No.SRD344/TSPCB/TF;HOl'.2 )22-1225 dt. 12-11-2022, pending dispr,sirl of the main Writ Petitio n.

¶21

Counsel for the Petil ioner: SRl. P. VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶22

Counsel for the Resl rondent No.1 and 2: SRl. PRANA\r MUNI(;ELA (ADDL SC FOR TSPCBI

¶23

Counsel for the Reslroldent No.3 and 4: SRI. INDRAGANTI lVl/\DtlU SARMA The Court made the 'ollowing: ORDER

¶24

THE^HON'BLE THE CHIEF JIISTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶26

IVRJT PETITION No.44 866 of2O22

¶27

ORDER: Per thc Hon'ble thE Chief Justice Ajot Bhugan)

¶28

Heard Ms. P.Vijaya l,akshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Pranav Munigela, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Telangana State pollution Control Board i.e., respondents No.l arid 2; and Mr. Indragalti Madhu Sarma, leau'ned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4.

¶29

By hling this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of the order dated 12.11.2022 passed by respondent No.1 temporarily revoking the closure order for a period of six months.

¶30

From the materiais on record, it is seen that respondents No.3 and 4 are operating a stone crusher unit

i i + t H

lrf lil l$

inthenamr:rtM/s.SreeBalajiMetalsatSiurvegNo30/5' Sulthanp,ur^{\i'illage, Ameenpur Mandal' S'a egareddy} District. I er;pondents^{No 3 and 4have obtained} permission^It 'ltn^{respondents No' Iand 2 to r'F eratc the} saidstolrect.:.;heruni.tfortheperioduptrl!110.2028. Petitione'r^{lcr :lged acomplaint dated 24 OE} before "2)'..'12 respondent.s^{No.1 and 2 stating that she is .Llrt: absolute} owner oi tlre^{iand admeasuring Acs'3'00 situatecl at Survey} No.30/5^{a1Sultanpur Village'Ameenp.urN{andal'} She had^{given lease of llLe said land} Sangareddl'^)istrict. Metals for^{oPeration o' the: stone} to M/s.^{Srr e Balaji} crusher uni^as Per iease agreement^{dirted 1)"I')'2017'} The lea se^{zt ,p 3ement was for a periodo I five '1'earsfrom} l2.lo.2Ol7^{1o17'lO'2022,which pt:rioil 'r'Iarr over'} Petitior^{er tf r:t efore prayedfor cancellatiorLo1' p :rmir;sion'}

¶35

On rer^{eipt of the complaint, officialsof t.lLe Telangana} State Pollurt^{o r Control Board inspected the indrrstrialunit} on 03.09.21^{t22 arrd observed variousd:fir:ier' ies'' After} notice and^{re aring, order dated Ig )O'2O22 rvlr' ptrssedby}

¶36

¶37

respondent No.2 directing closure of the stone crusher unit clarifying that the closure order would take effect from 19.1O.2022.

¶38

However, by the impugned order dated 12.11.2022, respondent No.l temporarily revoked the closure order for a period of six months.

¶39

5.1. From a perusal of the order dated 12.1I.2O22, it is seen that respondents No.3 and 4 had submitted a representation on 04.ll-2o22 and based on the said representation, the impugned order came to be passed.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was on her complaint that the closure order was passed. Now behind her back, on the basis of the representation of respondents No.3 and 4 dated O4.1I.2O22 the impugned order was hurriedly passed on 12.11.2022 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to have her say.

¶41

Learned counsel for respondents No.l and 2 submits that revocation of closure order was for a period of six

-2.

months, in'hi< h^{periodhas alrcadyexpiredTtr':r :fo:e,tl-re} impugned ctrr^{e - has no legal force as on toclay'}

¶46

J{orr.ctr:', learned counsel^{for the petitioner lxl'resses} an appr,:ht:n rion that^{respondents No.3 and '1 rrral again} seek for re,ro ation^{of closure order or for issrra:lr.ec'f fresh} permissron. If respondents^{No.3 and 4 are zrllo"'"'ed to} continue witl r their industrial^{unit on the land lre Longing to} the petitiont r without having^{any leaseagr€ernerlt,the} Same rvill cat tse serious^{prejudice to the petitiont:r'.}

¶47

g. Learnr: I :ounsel for respondents^{No.3 irnrl 4 submits} that the lea.s: tgreement with^{the petition<r hzu; ,;ince been} extended for a further^{period of five years bl' t.'" h rsband} of the petil.irt rr:r.

¶48

Withol t entering into^{such contentiousis ;l- eswe are} of the vierv tlrat since closure order^was lltr:;s:d^{on the} complarnt rt ccived from the^{petitioner, in the} ':r'ent.^{of any} fresh ordc:r b,-'ing passed b1, respondents^{No 1 arrd 2,it} u,ould be in umbent upon the said respo ldctr s to^{give an}

¶49

¶50

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner ald thereafter to pass any order as may be deemed fit and proper.

¶51

1 1. Having regard to the above, impugned order dated

¶52

12.11.2022 is set aside; more so as the said order is now of no legal consequence.

¶53

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶54

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶55

stald closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

SD/- K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Gn SECTION OFFICER

¶57

To,

¶58

The Member Secretary, Telangana State Pollution Control Board,^Paryavaran Bhavan, A-lll, lndustrial Estate, Sanatnagar, Hyderabad

¶59

The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer Telangana State Pollution Control Board, , Zonal Olffice, 25-35111, Tulasi Reddy Complex 2nd Floor, Opp. Govt. M College, R.C.Puram Sangareddy District.

¶60

One CC to Sri. P. Vijaya Lakshmi, Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

One CC to Sri. lndgraganti Madhu Sarma, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

One CC to Sri. Pranav Munigela^(ADDL SC for TSPCB) [OPUC]

¶63

Two CD Copies

TJ r'.

GJPy'(^".'

I T

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 106,2023

.1: .</-----i$ e STAIE o
o'
t:
n, ,' NL $8 ]L
l*

¶70

ORDER

¶71

WP.No.44866 of 2022

¶72

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CO i'I'S.

¶73

Smt.S.Swapna v. Telangana State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.S.Swapna v. Telangana State Pollution Control Board

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

Polisetti Yuvabharathi Vs The State of Telangana

Forum Against Corruption Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

M/s. Kausalya Agro Farms and Developers Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Source Hub Vs The Assistant Unit

Amina Khatoon Vs The Union of India And 3 Others

M/S Bhongir Tyres (Mrf Exclusive Showroom) Vs The State of Telangana