Dismissed

Nizamabad Saw Mill v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Apr 2023WP/7562/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the writ petition challenging the seizure of the petitioner's saw mill and machinery. The court held that the petitioner had not questioned the subsequent final order via appeal, thereby defeating the prayer to declare the seizure illegal and to compel its release.

What did the court decide?

Nothing granted. The seizure was allowed to remain as the final order was not challenged by the petitioner. The contempt case was closed.

Nizamabad Saw Mill Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I^3303l

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7562 OF 2019 ANO CONTEMPT CASE NO.647 OF 2019

¶7

W.P.No.7562 of 2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

Nizamabad Saw Mill, Situated at tValapally, Nizamabad^{Rep. by its Owner/Proprietor} Sri Mohd. Afzal Khan, S/o. Habib Khan, aged about. 49^years, occ. Saw^Mill Business, R/o. H.No. 9-20-887 , Malapally, Nizamabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

't. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Forest Environment, Sdlence and Technology Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶13

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, State of Telangana,^Aranya Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Chief Conservator of Forests/ Conservators^{of Forests, Nizamabad} Circle, Nizamabad.

¶15

The District Forest Officer, Nizamabad.

¶16

The Forest Divisional Officer, Nizamabad.

¶17

The Forest Range Officer,^(North) Nizamabad, Nizamabad^District.

¶18

The Station House Officer, Police Station, Nirmal^{(Rural) NirmalDiskict.}

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the seizure of the^{petitionersawmill on 21-01-2019at 4.00 P.M. and} taking 10 HP Electric Motor and^{Gutkha(Machinery Equipments) afterregistering} a case against petitioner saw mill^{vide POR No. 11/128 dated 21-01-2019} alleging the violation of Telangana^{Forest Act 1967 and Telangana WoodBased}

¶21

a- Es,' FTgF9' Fi, ry

¶22

lndustrres^(Regulatio' s ) Rules 2016 issued vide G.O.[4s Nc. ]5 E.F.S;. and^T (For.l) Dr:Partment^d: led 26-9-2016 and continuing, the^{seizure:of the petitioner} saw^{mtll and takinll} 0 HP Electric l\4otor and Gutkha^{(lv1ar;l nery Equrpments)} indef^{inile lY everr thcu} lf^{the petitioner has submitted explana.ionitt responseto} the^{show (la usenc)ti(} es issued by the Respondent NC). 5,'€.^{:orlst Divisional} Off icer,^Nr.lamabada d requested him to^permit me to r tn the a 3tit oner saw^mill as the^{seizureof the} retitioner saw mill pending enquiry rf anf i:; not permissible under^{law and the s} rnre is illegal and contrary to the Telanran;a Forest Act, 1967,^{Telangana l-re} rsit Rules, 1970 and Telangana Wro< based lndustries (Regulations )^Rules 2016 issued vide G.O.lvls.No [,5 E.l'.:i and T^(For.l) Department^{dated ::6'} )!r-20'1 6.

¶23

I.A.^{NO:1 OF 2019}

¶24

Petilion Undt:r )ection^{151 CPC praying that in the c r;umslancesstated} in the^{affidavitfiled in supportof the petition,the High Oorrrl rrily be pleasedto} direct^{the respondert: to release the petitioner sawmill itnd '1t FIP [:lectrlc motor} and^{Guthka (tt4achin,} D'^{equipments)from the seizure on ',a1 '1-r'.O19 at 4.00} which^{was seized by the forest authority by registeringta casr, vile POR NO.} 111128,^{dated21-0'1-019.}

¶25

t.A.NO:^{20F 2019}

¶26

Between

¶27

'1 . The State of 1'el rngana, Rep. by its Principal Secretztry, Fore'st E nvironment, Scierrce and l-et hnology^{Department, Secretariat, Hvderaba,.1.}

¶28

The^{Principal Cl ef Conservator of Forest,State of Telangz nit, Aranya} Bhavan, Hydera^tad.

¶29

¶30

The^{Chief Const rvator of Forests/ Conservatorsof F )rests l iza rabad} Circle, Nizamabi^d

¶31

The^{District Fore;t Officer,Nizamabad.}

¶32

The Forest^{Di,ris cnal Officer,Nizamabad.}

¶33

The^{Forest Rang a Officer,(North) Nizamabad, Nizantabad Distrir;t.}

¶34

....PETITIONER S/11E$PONDENTS

¶35

AND

¶36

1 Nizamabad Sar r ltr'lill, Situated at Malapally,^{Nizamabi:d Rep. byits} OwneriProprieto Sri Mohd. Afzal^Khan, S/o.^{Habib Khar, alled about. 49} years, occ. Saw /'li1l Business, R/o. H.No. 9-20-887, Malap:;lly, Nizamabad.

¶37

.....RESPOND EI{T/I]ETITIONER

¶38

./,-,,,.,.

¶39

The Station House Officer, Police Station, Nirmal (Rural) Nirmal District.

¶40

(RespondenURespondent No.2 is not necessary in this petition)

¶41

....RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶42

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 1010412019 in lA.No. 1 of 2019 in W.P.No. 7562 of 2019 and dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs as devoid of merits.

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.R.SATYANARAYANA REDDY(NOT PRESENT)

¶44

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 6 : GP FOR FORESTS

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : ASSISTANT GP FOR HOME

¶46

C.C.NO: 697 OF 2019

¶47

Between:

¶48

Nizamabad Saw Mill, situated at Malapally, Nizamabad Rep- by its Owner/Proprietor Sri Mohd. Afzal Khan, S/o. Habib Khan, aged about. 49 years, occ. Saw Mill Business,.Fl/o. H.No. 9-20-887, Malapally, Nizamabad.

¶49

...PETIflONER

¶50

AND

¶51

S.Sunil Herimath, District Forest Officer, Nizamabad.

¶52

S.Venkateshwarlu, Forest Divisional Officer, Nizamabad

¶53

...RESPONDENTS

¶54

Petition Under Sections^'10 to^'12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971^praying that in the circumstanqps stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for committing contempt for willfully and deliberately disobeying the order of the Honourable Court^passed in LA.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No. 7562 of 2019 dated 10-04-2019^passed by His Lordship Justice Challa Kondanda Ram J.

¶55

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.R.SATYANARAYANA REDDY(NOT PRESENT)

¶56

Counsel forthe Respondents : ASSISTANT GP FOR FORESTS

¶57

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER

¶58

I I i

¶59

HoN 'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENT/AS trIACI

¶60

WRIT PETITION No.75 62 of 2Ol9 AMI ' CoNTEMPT CASE No. 647 of 2Ot9

¶61

COMMON ORD}R

¶62

Writ P,tition No.7562 of 2019 is filed s.-:el..iull lhe iollo\ins

¶63

re Iicf

¶64

..1o issrre Writ or direction preferabl_r.Writ of I\la:Ldarerrs, decla in tfre seizure of the petitioner sau, mrll ,)n j2l-O t.2O lg at 4.00 P. 4. and takLng 1O Hp Elect.ic Motor an,i Gulkha (N1acl lr ry^Equipments) after registering a case ilgarnsl :l(,ti1ione. sarv rnrl vide POR No. 1tl 128 aated 2t.Ot.Zrtl9 a1 elring rhe violalr on o' l'elangana Forest Act, 1967 and t.elang,i,t,r (oua Based n(lustrles (Regulations) Rules, 2016 iss,re I rirte G. O. tu.s.l rd contitiuit g thc o.55 E.F.S.&T seizure of the tFor.l) petitioner Deparrment dared saw. mill rnd 26 O9 tal:i|g -, to lOHp Electr c 1(,lor and Culkha (Machinery Equipm,,nrsl irr,l,.frnrr,.11, evr:n t ho. gh the petitioner has submitted explantLtiotr tn r,, soons-e lo lhe s o\v causc notlce issued by the Respondcnr N:.5 .e., Forest L) ,isioDal Of6cer, Nizambad and request(d hint tc permit rr( [o ru the petitioner sarv mill as the seizure of tht_, pe irioQcr sa\r mill re:rdirg enquiry if ary is not permissibl,- unde: lrtv rLncl th( sam( .ts^{illegaland contraryto the Telangana F(,r(rrt} l.ct, G. O. M 191t7, r.N1', r.lis la_n_gana E.F.S&T Industries (For.l) Department dated (Regulations) Rules 26.rfgr.:lO t2O t(; i6 videand pass sucl or her order ol. orders,,.

¶65

On 11.( 4 2OIg in LA.No.O1 of 2O1g i;,r W.t) l.to.i.S62 of

¶66

20 19, this Cot rt passed the following interim or,jer:_

¶67

tr similar circumstances, in Wp. No.7342 of 20 L9 dated 08-r)4 :t0l ), this Court had an occasion to consider wh(.[her t1e seizure of the rnachinery effected wilhout passing hnal or Ccr rs su stain 1bi r. fl4r,1ng regard to the provisions of thc .frla rgarra Forest A.ct 1967 and the Rules made therein, )arlicularlv, in terms cf⁽ Cr. Ms. No.55, dated 26 09_2016, thir; Cour. rrinra facie. h.^ld tlre interim seizure lvithout passing linal ordrrrs is lmpcrmt ss .llr: so far as machinery is concerned.

¶68

¶69

ln those^{circumstances'there shatl be clircctionto the} respondents^{to release the petitionersau' mill forthuith to enable} the^{petitionerto carry on the business"}

¶70

Alleging^{non-complianceof the above order'the} petitioner frled^{C.C No'679 of 2Ol9}

¶71

Heard learned^{counsel for thepetitioner andthe} Learned^{Assistant GovernmentPleaderfor the respondents}

¶72

When C.C'No'647^{of 2OI9is taken for considerationon} O3.O3.2O23,^{there was no representationon behalf ofthe} petltioner,^{To give fair opportunity'case is posted to 17 03 2023 '} On 17.03.2023,^{contemptcase is posted on 24 'O3 '2023 aloog} with W.P.No.7^{562 of 2Ol9'On 31 O3'2023' there was no} representation^{on behalf of the petitioner'To give one more} opportunity,^{postedto06 'O4 '2023 under the caption"for} dismissal'.^{Today also there is no representationon behalfof the} petitioners,^{in spite of the mattersbeingpostedunderthe caption} for dismissal'

¶73

When the^{matters are taken upfor hearing'learned} Government^{Pleaderfor Forests submitsthat the Forest Divisional} show^{case noticeand} Offtcer-respondent^{No'S after issuan&} -of

¶74

¶75

afLer fo IIorr rr g due p|oceclure undcr tl-re prorisions ( f^.l'clarlgana I,'orc st ACt, 1967 and Telangana Wood Basr:d Inclusrries (Regularizari ,n) Rules 20 16, passed order r,.idt. prc ceedings No.179l1!11 5 dated 18.05.2019. The pctitioner h rs not lllcd apperal or itrr ' otlier procecdings questioning the ab r,3 slrrd orcier an d tht' seLm : has become final and binding upon tl:e p,etitioner and thc ca.r s r in the u,ril petition does not sur.dve.

¶76

Accorcl nlll', the rvrit petition is dismissed. F[<,rr.:ver, liber.ty is qiven t0 th r peiitioner to avail the remedy undr:r Lhr: pr.ovisions o[ Telanga-ra F'orest. Act ald Telangala woo<l Baserl Industries (Rcgu lanzatic r) Rules to question the order dateri 1g.05.2019 passed by les )c,ndcnt No.5.

¶77

In vieu of the dismissal of the main writ prttitton, the contcmpt cils, is closcd

¶78

Misce,lli nr:ous Petitions, if any pencing, shall stand drsposed of. T rere shall be no order as to costs.

¶79

SiD/-K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶80

//TRUE COPY'

¶81

$ECTION OFFICER

¶82

To 1. Two CCs to C^I FOR FORESTS, High Court for the Stat: of T3langana at Hyderabad [( UT][( UT]UT]

¶83

Hyderabad [( UT][( UT]UT]

¶84

1. fwo CCs tc, C⁾ FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State of Tolangana at Hyderabad [( UT]

¶85

One CC to SF I.R.SATYANARAYANA REDDY, Advocakr Ir]PUCI 4. Two CD Ccpir s

SA SB

HIGH COUR"

DATED:0610,.12023

COMMON OIIDER

WP.No.7562 tf 2019 AND

¶91

CC.No.697 o 2019

¶92

-,aa
F'
.\i
1t ):
t....
lll ct.r
<br>,tt', 1,:
1 , _-.:/

¶93

DTSMISSING THE W.P AND

¶94

c.c. ts cLos ED.

¶95

a
L-)
t
3t L3 -----
.s (f,

Nizamabad Saw Mill v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nizamabad Saw Mill v. The 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

Juttika Venkateshwararao Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

G.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited

Enti Venkateswarlu, Vs State of Telangana

A.P.State Schedule Tribes, Hyderabad. Vs the Prl.Secretary to Govt.,S.W.,Hyd.,and 9 Otrs.

Boggam Rajulu Vs The Governement of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Tirumala Saw Mill Vs State of Telangana,and 5 others