Disposed

M/s . Narmada Industries v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Apr 2023WP/8771/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging seizure notice and seeking exemption under Wood Based Industries Rules. Noting the issuance of new 2022 regulations, the Court granted liberty to file a fresh application under the new rules and directed respondents to grant permission within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Granted liberty to submit fresh application under new G.O.Ms.No.69 Rules, 2022; Directed respondent to consider and pass order within six weeks.

M/s . Narmada Industries Vs The State of Telangana — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF^APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{J. SREENIVAS RAO}

¶7

wRIT PETITION NO: 8771 Of20'!9

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Narmada lndustries,^{Rep.by its Partner, Bhagwandas Patel, S/o Mohan} Lal. Aoe 45 vears, R/o^Sy.No.141 ,^{DommaraPochampallyVillage} Quthbuilapur Mdndal,^{Medchal Dist (Old Rangareddy Dist),Telangana}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Department of} Environment, Forest,^{Siience& Technology, Secretariat, Hyderabad,TS}

¶13

The Principal Chief^{ConservatorOf Forest, Oio. PCCF &HoFF,} AranyaBhavan, Saifabad,^{Hyderabad, TS}

¶14

The District Forest^{Officer,O/o District ForestOfficer, Medchal Dist' TS'}

¶15

The Forest Range Officer,^{O/o Forest Range Officer,Duleipally, Medchal} District, TS.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ, in the nature of^{a writ of Mandamusor any other} appropriate writ, direction^{or order consideringthe petitioner'sfurniture unit as} exempted under the^{provisions of"Telanganawood Based lndustries} (Regulations) Rules, 20'16 and^{wood Based lndustries (Establishmentand} Regulation) Guidelines,^{2016" and further declaring the seizure Notice of the 3rd} Respondent Rc. No.^{348t2016t54 dated 23.01.2019 and 4th Respondent Rc. No.} WP/ DP/ 2018-19^{dated 09.03.20'19 as illegal and void}

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶19

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition, the Highcourtmay be pleased to} suspend seizure^{Notice issuedRc. No. 34812016154dated 23-01-2019by the} 3rd respondent, and^{seizure Noticeissued Rc. No. WP/DP/2O18-19dated} 09-03-2019 by the^{4th respondent pendingdisposal of the main writ petition.}

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI V.RAMESH BABU}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents:^{AGPFOR FORESTS}

¶22

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION No,a771 of 2Ol9

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This Writ petition is l-rled for seeking Writ of Mandamus for considering the^petitioner's furniture unit as exernpted under the provisions of "Telangana Wood Based Industries (Regrlations) Rules, 2O 16" and Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Guidelines, 2O 16" and further declaring the seizure Notice of the 3.d respondent vide Rc.No.348/^2O 16/ 54^dated 23.O1.2OI9 and the 4th respondent vide Rc.No.WP/DP /20la-9 dated O9-O3-2O19 as illegal^and void and pass such other order.

¶27

Heard Sri V. Ramesh Babu, learned counsbi^for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for} Forests appearing for respondent Nos.1 to^4.

¶28

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for^{Forests as well} as the learned counsel for the^petitioner submitted^that during the pendency of the Writ^petition, the^Government had framed the new rules and issued G.O.Ms.No.69, Environrnent, Forests, Science and Technolory^(For.I), Telangana Wood Based Industries^{(Regulations)Rules,}

¶29

¶30

2022, dated O5.Oa.2O22 and the same^{was published in} Telangana Gazette uide Gazette Notification^{No. 16,} Hyderabad dated O5.O8.2O22 and^{pursuant to the sarne} the petitioner tras to make necessary application^seeking the permission to run its unit.

¶31

In view of the same, the Writ petition is disposed of granting libert5r to the petitioner to submit fresh application as per rule G.O.Ms.No.69 dated 05.Oa.2022 and thereafter, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of six⁽⁶⁾ weeks thereafter.

¶32

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of

¶33

No costs.

¶34

To,

¶35

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stands cloSed.

¶36

SD/- N. CHANDRA^SEKHARRAO ASSISTANT REGIgTRAR //TRUE COPY// \r. SECTION OFFICER

¶37

1 . The Prl.^{Secretary,Department} -of^{Environment,Forest'Science} &Technology,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad, State ot I elangana'}

¶38

1. The Principal Chief^{Conservator Of Forest,O/o' PCCF &HoFF'} AranyaBhavan,^{Saifabad, Hyderabad, TS}

¶39

¶40

The District^{ForestOfficer, o/o District ForestOfficer, MedcahlDist,TS.}

¶41

The Forest^{Rangeofficer, o/o Forest Rangeofficer,Dulapally,Medchal} District, TS.

¶42

One CC to^{SRI V.RAMESH BABU' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶43

Two CCs to^{GP FoRFoRESTS, High Courtfor the Stateof Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶44

BSR7 Two CD Copies ' b,GJP

iEi=w.".*_

,{ \

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1010412023

\a l-rig S T4 )
ae'
/)-
ta
i'J 1 6 Fie i024 i)'
* -{'.
S;,A.-i Ci

¶50

ORDER

¶51

WP.No.8771 ot 2019

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶53

WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

M/s . Narmada Industries v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s . Narmada Industries 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

Kommineni Ramaiah Vs The Government of A.P.

Sapka Lingaiah and 6 Others Vs the Govt of Ap., Forest Dept., and 4 Others

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

M/s. Seghani Agro Tech Vs The State of Telangana

Gitte Namdev Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Anil Wood Pac Industry Vs State of Telangana and 2 others