Telangana High Court
WP/26911/2007 of M/s.Venkateswara Granites,rep.by its Proprietor Vs The Governmetn of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary on 24 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26911 OF 2007 Date: 24.12.2007 Between: M/s.Venkateswara Granites . . .Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others . . .Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26911 OF 2007 ORDER:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.26911 OF2007
Date: 24.12.2007
Between:M/s.Venkateswara Granites . . .PetitionerAND
The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others . . .Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare theaction of the respondents in not considering representation, dated06.09.2007 submitted along with documents for processingapplication, dated 18.12.2003 for grant of prior approval ofCompartment No.209 of Ragimanupenta Reserve Forest of ChittoorWest Division, Chittoor District for grant of quarry lease for BlackGranite over an extent of 5.000 hectares in compliance of notice, dated01.08.2007 received by the petitioner on 16.08.2007 as arbitrary andillegal.
In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is averred thatthe petitioner submitted application on 18.12.2003 for prior approvalunder Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for grant ofquarry lease for black granite over an extent of five hectares inCompartment No.209 of Ragimanupenta Reserve Forest of ChittoorWest Division, Chittoor District. The competent authority havingreceived the said application issued proceedings, dated 05.01.2007,wherein the petitioner was required to furnish compensatoryaforestation land particulars and surveyed sketch for taking necessaryaction on or before 12.01.2007. It is further averred that by letter, dated13.07.2007, the petitioner requested thirty days time for submission ofthe same. While so, according to the petitioner, it received noticethrough respondent No.2 on 16.08.2007, wherein it was asked tosubmit the particulars regarding compensatory aforestation land alongwith sketch by 16.08.2007 and failing which, the file will be closed. However, the petitioner claimed to have made representation on 06.09.2007 to receive the proposal and the same was received byrespondent No.2 on 19.09.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is thatwithout passing orders on its representation, the respondents areseeking to allot this land to third parties.
At the hearing, Smt. N.Shoba, learned counsel for the petitionersubmitted that the action of the respondents in seeking to close the fileon the ground that the petitioner failed to submit its proposals on orbefore 16.08.2007 is ex facie arbitrary. According to her, the petitionerreceived notice, dated 01.08.2007 only on 16.08.2007 and, therefore, itcould not comply with the requirement of sending the proposals before16.08.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed a copy of theregistered cover sent from the office of Principal Chief Conservator ofForests, which prima facie shows that the cover was received on16.08.2007.
Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the impleadedrespondent fairly submitted that to the extent of the prayer of thepetitioner to consider representation, dated 06.09.2007 along withwhich the details for compensatory aforestation were submitted, hisclient has no objection for allowing the same. But he submits that thepetitioner had been seeking prior approval only in respect ofCompartment No.200 and that it is now making efforts to seek suchapproval in respect of Compartment No.209, for which his client hasobjection.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests says thatsince notice, dated 01.08.2007 was evidently, received by thepetitioner only on 16.08.2007, the petitioner’s representation andproposals submitted on 06.09.2007 may be directed to be considered.
Having regard to the respective submissions of the learnedcounsel, I propose to dispose of the writ petition without going into theissue whether the petitioner’s application was originally madeavailable for Compartment No.209 or not, as I am of the view that thisdispute, which falls in the realm of a disputed fact, is required to beconsidered and decided only by respondent No.2 – Principal ChiefConservator, Department of Forests, Hyderabad.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the followingdirections:
1. Respondent No.2 shall receive and consider the proposalssubmitted by the petitioner in reply to notice, dated01.08.2007 sent by him.submitted by the petitioner in reply to notice, dated01.08.2007 sent by him.
2. Respondent No.2 shall give an opportunity of personalhearing to the petitioner and the impleaded respondent anddecide on the proposal submitted by the petitioner, within aperiod of four weeks after completion of hearing of theparties.hearing to the petitioner and the impleaded respondent anddecide on the proposal submitted by the petitioner, within aperiod of four weeks after completion of hearing of theparties.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP No.35155 of2007 is disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
24[th] DECEMBER, 2007
kvni