Allowed

S.Sudheer Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Feb 2025WP/14260/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge Writ Bench allowed the petitioner's writ petition challenging forest department orders rejecting his appeal and revision. The Court set aside the impugned orders for mechanically confirming decisions without considering the petitioner's explanation or assigning reasons, setting them aside and remitting the issue to the District Forest Officer for afresh disposal within four weeks

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings of the 4th, 3rd, and 2nd respondents are set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent No. 4 for reconsideration by all concerned within four weeks in conformity with pr

S.Sudheer Reddy Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 14260 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

S.Sudheer Reddy, s/o. S.Padma^{Reddy, aged about 43 years,occ busjness,} Owner of Chari:oal Depot^{Sy.No.143,ManchuppulaVillage, Palakurthy} Mandal,JangaonDistrict(ErstwhileWarangalDistrict) ...pETtTtoNER

¶9

AND

¶10

'l . The State of Telangana, , Rep by its Special Chief Secretary to Govt-. Envrronment, ForeIts, Scienie and^{TeihnologyDepartment, Aranya Bhavan'} Saifabad, Hyderabad^- 500 004

¶11

The Principil Cniet Conservator of^{Forests and Head of the Forest Force} (HoFF), T6langana, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad,^{Hyderabad - 500 004}

¶12

e tne Ctrief Con-servitor of Forests/^{Conservator oi Forests,, WarangalCircle,} Warangal

¶13

The DiStrict Forest Officer, , Warangal Urban^{and Jangaon Warangal}

¶14

The Forest Range Officer, . Ghanpur^{Range. Ghanpur (Stn). JangaonDistrict.} 6. The Deputy Ran-ge Officer, ,^{Palakurthy, Ghanpur Range, Ghanpur(Stn),} Jangaon District.

¶15

...REspoNDENTs Petition under Article 226 ol the^{Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more^{particularly one in the nature of a} Writ of Mandamus declaring the^{aclion of respondents in issuingimpugned} Proc.No.9221202'tlM9, dated^{19.08.2021 reiecting the appeal petitionof the} petitioner and consequential rejection^{vtde Proc.No8971 12021lProd.1,dated} 16.05.2023 rejecting the revision^{petition of the petitionerand upholding the orders} issued by the chief conservator of^{Forests/conservatorof Forests,warangal as} arbilrary, illegal and against the^{principles of naturaljustice and set asidethe} same as there are no merits

¶16

lA NO:^'t OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased to} suspend the operation of^{impugned Proc.No.9221202'1l1V9,dated 19 08.2021}

¶18

issued by third respondent and^{consequential rejection vile} Proc. No.897'1/ 2021lProd.1,^{dated 16.05.2023issued by secondrespondentand} further direct the respondents to^{invokethe licenseof the petitionercharcoal} depot, pending disposal of the^{above writ petition}

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIGUNDRATI RAMAN GOUD}

¶20

Counsel for Respondents:^{GP FOR FORESTS}

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

-) t

¶23

HON'BLE MRS.^{JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶24

WRIT PETITI^{ON No.14250 ()F 2023}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri G. Raman^{Goud, learned counsel appearing} on behalf of the^{petitioner and learned Government} Pleader for Forests, appearing^{on behalf of respondent} Nos.1 to 6.

¶27

The^{petitioner approached thisCourt withthe} following^prayer:

¶28

" ...to issue a Writ,^{order or directionmore} particularly one in the nature of^{a Writ of Mandamus} declaring the action of^{respondentsinissuing} impugned Proc.^{No. 92212021/M9,dated 19-08-2021} rejecting the appeal^{petition ol'} lhe^{petitionerand} consequential rejection^{vide Proc. No.B97l/2O2ll} Prod.1, dated 16.05.2023^{rejecting the revision} petition of the petitioner and^{upholding the orders} issued by the Chief^{Conservator ofForests/} Conservator of^{Forests,Warangal as arbitrary, illegal} and against the^{principles of natural justice and set} aside the same^{as there are no merits and pass "'}

¶29

The case of the^{petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioneris} the owner of Charcoal^{Depot in Sy.No'143,ManchuppulaVillage,}

¶30

SN. J tV.l'No.11260ol'2023

¶31

¶32

Palakurthy Mandal, langaon District. The respondent No.4 issued show cause notice No.7023/2017/52, dated 09.03.2021 alleging that on 75.02.2027 total 1190 bags were found at the depot site i.e. 664 of charcoal bags in excess than the yield of charcoal i.e. 526 and also found some kiln in the position of burning without obtaining permission from the licensing authority. On 15.03.2021 the^petitioner submitted detailed explanation but the respondent No.4 without considering the explanation dated 15.03.2021 and without givinq any opportunity to record the petitioner's depositions, issued proceedings No.1023/2017/52 dated 21.O5.2021 and confiscated the material involved in the offence. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3'd respondent. However, the 3'd respondent, without considering the facts passed orders vide proceeding No.922/202tlt\49 dated 79.08.2027 rejecting the petitioner's appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred revision of the orders dated 19.08.2021 and the same was rejected vide order dated 16.05.2023. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the matter could be remitted to the 4th respondent for reconsideration oF the subject issue for passing orders afresh

¶34

SN. J W.P. No.11260 of2()21

¶35

¶36

again within a^{reasonableperiod in accordance to Law in} conformity with^principles of^{naturaljustice.}

¶37

The learned counsel appearing on^{behalf ofthe} respondents does not dispute the said^{submissionsmade by the} learned counsel appearing on behalf of^{the petitioners.}

¶38

PERUSED T E RECORD

¶39

A bare^perusal of the^{impugned proceedingsdated} 27.05.2021 issued by the^{4th respondentclearly indicates. that} the 4th respondent failed to^{consider the explanationfurnishedby} the^petitioner and^{had issuedthe impugned orders unilaterally.} A bare perusal of the impugned^{proceedingsdated 19.08.2021} issued by the 3'd respondent vide^{Proc' No. 922/202tlM9,dated} 19.08.2021 clearly^{indicatesthat the order passed by the 3'd} respondent is without assigning^{any. reasons nor the said} impugned proceedings indicate any^{considerationofthe} petitioner's pleas as put forth before the 3'd respondent.^The said order had been^{confirmedmechanlcallyby the Principal} Chief Conservator of^{Forests & Head of the Forest Force (HoFF),} Hyderabad/2"d respondent^{vide Proc. No. 8971/2021/Prod.t} dated 16.05.2023^{in the revisionpreferred by the petitioner} before the^{2nd respondent, aggrieved against the order passedby}

¶40

¶41

SN, J \4 I,. No. t4260 of2023

¶42

¶43

the 3'd respondent in proc No.922/2027/M9 dated Lg.OB.2O2I.

¶44

7"t^ T kin into consideration :

¶45

(a) The facts and circumstances of the case,

¶46

(b) Duly considering the submissions of the learned

¶47

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,

¶48

The writ petition is allowed by setting asade the impugned proceedings dated 2L.OS.2O2L of the 4th respondent, and the impugned proceedings of the 3.d respondent vide proc. No.g22/ZO2t/Mg, ilated 19.08.2021, and the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide proc. No.ggTL/20,21/proc.l, dated 16.05.2023 and the subject issue is remitted to the respondent No.4 for re-consideration afresh, duly considering all the pleas put forth by the petitioner before the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent as directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, in conformity with the principles of natural justice, by hearing all concerned within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receapt of a copy of this order. There shalt be no order as to costs.

¶49

SN. J U' l' No.l't160 ot202l

¶50

¶51

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions,if any, pending in the}

¶52

writ petition shall also stand closed.

¶53

SD/.A.V.S.^PRASAD E UTY REGISTRAR

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

SECTION OFFICER

¶56

To, 1. The The Specral^{Chief Secretary to GovL, Environment'Forests' Science Scienceand}

¶57

The The Specral^{Chief Secretary to GovL, Environment'Forests' Science Scienceand} ' iLi"n"[r"-gv oepartment.S State of Telangana' Aranya Bhavan' Saifabad' Hvderabad - 500⁰⁰⁴

¶58

,. T#Fffi;rr-diiJiiont"rvator^{of Foresls and.Headof the Forest Force} ' i#iii: iJtln6rnl, Aianva shavan Saifabad, Hvderabad - 500 004

¶59

3 The Chief^{Conservatoroiior."tti/Coniervatot oi Forests' ' Warangal Circle'} Waranoal.

¶60

a i'n??jixii"t Forest^{officer., warangatUrbanand Jangaon warangal _..} ; iil; F;.inang;omcei,^{. cni.pii Ran-se,Ghanpuilst4'Jansaon District} 6 iii; b;p,rii'i;""s"bffi";;'.^{Parii<urthv,dhanpur Ranse' Ghanpur(stn)'} Janoaon District.

¶61

7 blil'6-C to sii cundrati^{Raman Goud AdvocateloPuc.t} 8 Two ccs to^{GP For ror"rt.',iiigi"i;t;'t# th;di;te #Tehnsana[oUT]} o Two CD^CoPies

MBC

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1110212025

Gl E SIT4 r €
k
z
d tB ilAn xE
, .,+{
,rf O
ORDER

¶68

WP.No.14260 of 2023

¶69

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

¶70

'N)
W-

¶71

WITHOUT COSTS

S.Sudheer Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sudheer Reddy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J. Sanjeeva Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Kottem Chittemma Vs State of Telangana

M/s. S.Siri Techno Crafts, Vs Central Power Distribution Company of A.P Ltd.

Madhu Vishanji Shah Vs The State of Telangana

S.Rajeshwar Vs The State of Telangana

Bandala Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana