Disposed

Nune Komuraiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Sept 2024WP/4943/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging enquiry proceedings and a directive to vacate a poultry farm, holding that the respondents acted arbitrarily by failing to issue notice to the petitioner before conducting the enquiry or directing closure. The court directed that any further action must follow due procedure under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents not to interfere with the poultry farm without following due procedure; writ petition disposed of.

Nune Komuraiah Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 4943 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Nune Komuraiah, S/o. Dharmaiah, Aged 62^years, Occ. Business, R/o. Mutharam (Manthani) Village and Mandal, Peddapalli District.

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Ra.j and Rural Development, Secretariat. Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Collector. Peddapalli District, Peddapalli.

¶14

The Mandal Panchayat Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Mutharam (Manthani) Mandal, Mutharam (Manthani) Mandal, Peddapalli District.

¶15

The Panchayat Secretary, Mutharam (Mathani) Village and Mandal Peddapalli District.

¶16

.,...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing enquiry proceedings daied 28-07 -2023 for petitioneis poultry farm named as Laxmi Poultry Farm situated in Sy.No. 498411/111, situated at Kasarlagadda Village, Mutharam (Manthani) fulandal, Peddapalli District, directing the petitioner not to caffy any poultry farm works in poultry farm after 01-03-2024, as illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutional and against the^principle of natural^justice, and consequently set aside the same.

¶18

l.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶19

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of enquiry proceedings dated 28-07-2023 issued by the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI THIMMARAJU RAMCHANDRA RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : G.P FOR REVENUE

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 ::SRl^p.KISHORE RAO

¶24

The Court made the following ORDER

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.4943 of 2024

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution ol India for following relief:

¶29

"...to issue a WiL Order or Direction more partianlarly one in the nature of Writ of Mondamus declaing the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing enquiry proceedings dated 28.O7.2023 for petitioner's poultry farm named as " l,axmi Poultry Farm" situated in SA.No.498A/ 1/ 1/ 1 situated at Kasarlagadda Village, Muthararn (Monthani) Manda| Peddapalli Distict, directing the petitioner not to carry ony poultry fann uorks in poultry farm after 01.03.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the^principle of natural^justice and consequentl!/ set aside the same..."

¶30

Heard learned counsel appearing lor the petitioner,

¶31

Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the poultry farm namely "Laxmi Poultry Farm" situated in Sy.No.49BAl1I1/1, Kasarlagadda

¶33

¶34

¶35

Village, Mutharam (Manthani) Mandal, peddapalli District and the same is established with due permission obtained from the respondent No.4-Gram panchayat on 16.02.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner has constructed a small farmer,s poultry farm with measurement of 130 feet length and 4 % feet width with 2000 birds and now the number of birds reached to 4500 till now. The said poultry larm is 2 km away from the said village and the same is an isolated place, where there are no houses existing and the entire surroundings are agricultural land.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that basing on the complaint received from Sri Veerachar5r and 3 others, the 3'a respondent behind the back of the petitioner issued enquiry notice on 26.0T.2023 and enquiry was conducted on 28.07.2023. But the 3d respondent neither issued any notice nor did the petitioner participate in the enquiry dated 28.07.2023 and thereafter they forcibly took the petitiorrer's signature on the enquiry report. The enquiry report states that the people near the poultry form are suffering with unhygienic conditions and bad odour from it. Id view of the same, conditional order passed bv

¶37

i \

¶38

¶39

the official respondents and^{stating that the petitionershal1} vacate on O1.03.2024 before 5^PM and^basing on^the report/undertaking dated 28.O7.2023, tire^respondents interfering with the activities of the^{petitioner. In view of the} same, the said action of the respondents 1S illegal and arbitrary.

¶40

Learned counsel for the^{petitionerfurther submits} that the Gram Panchayat, Mutharam^{passed a resolution on} 28.O2.1999 and accorded^{permissionto run a poultryfarm.} In view of the same, the entire^notice and^enquiry proceedings are not in accordance with law and^not prescribed by any Act and therefore, the notice^{and enquiry} of the 3.d respondent is liable to be set^{asideand requested} to allow the writ petition by setting^{aside the enquiry} proceedings dated 28.07 .2023.

¶41

On the other hand, learned Standing^{Counsel for} respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat,^{basing on the counter} affidavit, submits that basing on^{the complaint dated} 24.07.2023 made by the villagers^{against the petitioner's} poultry farm, the District Panchayat Officer in^his

¶42

¶43

I I

¶44

Lr.No.A4l 153112023 dated 26.OT.2023 addressed to Mandal Panchayat Officer, Mpp Mutharam (Manthani) to enquire into the matter and submit report. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 has issued notice dated 26.07.2023 to the petitioner for enquiry at Laxmi poultry Farm and the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had conducted the enquiry in the presence of the complainant, petitioner and as many as 30 villagers. During the enquiry, the petitioner accepted the unhygienic situation in and around the poultry farm and also gave an undertaking to vacate on or before 01.03.2024 and there is no illegality in the enquiry notice dated 26.07.2023 of the respondent No.3 and also enquiry proceedings dated 28.O7 .2023.

¶45

I \

¶46

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.4 further submits that admittedly there were no residential houses near the poultry farm and it was 2 km away from the village. But, due to increased population, the habitants constructed houses surrounding the poultry farm where the agricultural lands were converted to residential houses and then the residents are unable to tolerate the bad odour released from the poultry farm. Therefore, the petitioner

¶47

¶48

, I I ii i

¶49

himself gave an undertaking accepting to close the poultry larm activities from O1.O3.2O24 and came with the present writ petition, which is contrary to his own undertaking and the same is liable to be dismissed and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶50

After hearing both sides and on perusing the entire material on record, this Court is ol the considered view that the petitioner is the owner of the pouitry farm "Laxmi Pouitry Farm" situated in Sy.No.498Al ll1/ 1, Kasarlagadda Village, Mutharam (Manthani) Mandal, Peddapalli District. While it being so, basing on the complaint dated 24.O7.2023 made by the villagers against the petitioner's poultry farm, the District Panchayat Officer addressed a letter Lr.No.A4/ l53l12023 dated 26.07.2023 to the Mandal Panchayat Officer, MPP Mutharam (Manthani) to enquire into the matter and submit report. In view of the same, the respondent No.3-Mandal Panchayat Officer had issued notices dated 26.O7.2023 to one K.Veerachaqr and the respondent No.4-Panchayat Secretary, Mutharam (Kasarlagadda) Vilalge, for conducting enquiry on II

¶51

¶52

28.07.2023 arrd the same was not addressed or not served to the petitioner.

¶53

On 28.07.2023, without conducting any proper enquiry taken signatures from the petitioner as the petitioner has to vacate the poultry farm before 5 pM on O1.O3.2O24 and the same was done without following due procedure/without issuing notice to the petitioner before conducting enquiry on 28.O7.2023.

¶54

The Competent Authority i.e., the respondent No:4-Gram Panchayat(Secretar5r) granted permission to the petitioner for the said poultry farm in the year, 1999. Now, basing on the complaint made by the villagers, the official respondents cannot interfere with the activities of the poultry farm of the petitioner without issuing any notice to him. Therefore, the said action of the official respondents is nrbitrary, illegal and violation of the Telangana panchayat Raj Act,2O18.

¶55

1 1. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, ] directing the respondents not to interi'ere with the poultry

¶56

farm of the petitioner without following due procedure contemplated under Law. If the respondents want to take further action against the petitioner's poultry farm, they have to follow due procedure as per the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 20 18 by giving notice to the petitioner.

¶57

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.

¶58

1n 13. Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,

¶59

this lr,rit petitions shall stand closed.

¶60

SD/-T.^JAYASREE EGISTRAR ASSISTANT

¶61

/ITRUE^COPY//

¶62

SE loN OFFIc^ER \ \j

¶63

To '1. rhe^principar secretary.^{panchayat Ral andRural Deveropment, Secretariat,} siri" oi^{i"rrnganaat HYderabad}

¶64

1. 1. 4 il1Hl*tt;tr1-iiffiil[idt#,,,1T'','#3#'#:']:illManhanThe Panchayat^Secretary' D EV E^{L o P M E N r Hi g h}

¶65

5 !iit!li"'i[. lE:oI ff ]Hil :l ffi : ai3. l' "^-i

¶66

6 ff:tt3:ff $".,?l^{i?fl iKtjE , Higiic""t roi the st ate or rera n s a n a at} Ad v oca'ie to^{P u c]}

¶67

7 B [lt"if lj^{dfl iiuuuam'Hffxsm:Bi6 Affi}

¶68

o Two CD^CoPies

SA BS d,

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 1t0912024

ORDER

o R-IHE Sl
.'i..i<br>,s
o
U
2 7 rIiU
K,
o-1Tar i!:'.)

WP.No.4943 of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITI-IOUT COSTS.

l't5
(.p'
rD .\ ,/
X..'Vq
A'

Nune Komuraiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nune Komuraiah 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

M/s. Balakrishna Distributing Company, Vs Prl.Secy., Agrl. dept., State of T.S.

M/s Premier Plastic Industries Vs State of Telangana

M/S. Premier Plastic Industries Vs State of Telangana

Smt. P. Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana, And 3 Others

M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Rice Industries, Vs The District Collector

Shaik Parvez Vs The State of Telangana