Sri Lakshmi Sawmill And Timber Depot v. State Of Telangana And 2 Others,
\ HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO: 22231 OF 2022 Between:
Sri Lakshmi Sawmill and Timber Depot, Represented by its owner Kotolu Omkarachary S/o Ramaswamy,Age.T5 Years, Occ.Business Rl/o Husnabad, Siddipet, Siddipet District ...PETITIONER AND
1. State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
2. Husnabad Municipality, Rep.by Commissioner, Husnabad Town and Mandal, Siddipet District.
3. The District Forest Officer, Siddipet, Siddipet District .,.RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 o't the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice vide Roc No.F117412022, daled 2510412022 issued by the Respondent No.2 for removal of the petitioner business place forthwith within 3 days, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 1a and 19(1Xg) of the Constitution of lndia apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said Auction Notice, dated 2510412022 in respect of the petitioner's business concerned and consequently direct the Respondents to allow the petitioner to continue businesses in the same locality.
lA NO: 1 oF 2022 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 suspend the Notice vide Roc No.F1 t7 412022, dated 2510412022 issued by the Respondent No.2 for removal bf the petitioner business place forthwith within 3 days businesses situated in Municipal limits of Husnabad Town and Mandal, Siddipet District, pending final disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. G .ESWARAIAH Counsel for the Respondent NO.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent NO.2: SRl. N.PRAVEEN KUMAR (SC FOR MC) Counsel for the Respondent NO.3: GP FOR FOREST The Court made the following: ORDER
/ I HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI uIRIT PETITION No.22 23L of 2022 ORDER:
This writ petition is filed questioning the notice vide Roc No.Fl/74/2022 dated 25.04.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 referring to the notices which were issued on Og.O7.2O2l and O7.OB.2O2 I directing the Proprietor of the petitioner Saw Mill to shift the business from Rao's Colony, Husnabad within three (3) days from the date of receiving the letter.
2.
Mr. G. Eswaraiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Sau' Mill submits that earlier when the notices dated O9-O7 -2021 and 07-Oa-2O21 were issued, a detailed explanation was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner Saw Mill to the said show cause notices. He submits that now ali of a sudden, the present proceedings dated 25'04 '2022 were issued by the respondents directing the Proprietor of the petitioner Saw Mill to shift his business.
3.
Mr. N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation submits that earlier notices were issued by them. He a-lso does not dispute the fact that no orders are passed pursuant to the said show cause notices'
W.P.No.2 2231 of ZO22 4.
When the respondents have issued notices dated O907 -2021 and O7-O8 -2021, they failed to take any action and along with the Writ Petition, reply dated 12.O8.2021 given on behalf of the petitioner Saw Mill is also filed. It appears that no orders are passed by the respondents considering the said reply and straightaway the impugned proceedings dated 25.O4.2022 were issued.
5.
In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the irnpugned proceedings dated 25.04 .2022 directing the respondent No.2 to consider the reply dated 12.O8.2O21 submitted on behalf of the petitioner Saw Mil1 and pass appropriate orders $'ithin a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneor.rs petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
SD/-B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ) SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary,. Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Telangana Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. The Commissioner, Husnabad Municipality, Husnabad Town and lVlandal, Siddipet District Crrr/-J''
t
// /
3. The District Forest Officer, Siddipet, Siddipet District
4. One CC to SRl. G ESWARAIAH Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV (TG) ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]
6. One CC to SRl. N.PRAVEEN KUMAR (SC FOR tVC),Advocate IOPUC]
7. Two CCs to GP FOR FOREST,H|gh Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]
8. Two CD Copies.
9. One Spare Copy.
GB { IVt\/A
II a HIGH COURT I q DATED:2710412022 .o .s iis
ORDER
* WP.No.22231 ot 2022 1i{ * DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS.
Qt;t )- + a Nt