Telangana High Court
WP/27936/2007 of V. Shyam Sunder Vs The Forest Range Officer, Kollapur, Mahabubnagar on 27 December 2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 27936 of 2007 27.12.2007 Between: V. Shyam Sunder … Petitioner AND The Forest Range Officer, Kollapur, Mahabubnagar District & others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C. Sai Reddy Counsel for the respondents : Assistant
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 27936 of 2007
27.12.2007
Between:
V. Shyam Sunder
… Petitioner
AND
The Forest Range Officer, Kollapur,Mahabubnagar District & others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C. Sai Reddy Counsel for the respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Forests
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
7
Decisions referred to
In this index
7
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.
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare theaction of respondent No.2 in issuing order dated 10.10.2007, wherebyhe cancelled order dated 05.10.2007 passed by him earlier permittingthe petitioner to locate his saw mill at house No.2-18/61 in Boyagiri ofKollapur town as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.
Heard Sri C. Sai Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner andlearned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests.
A perusal of the record shows that on 05.10.2007, respondentNo.2 permitted shifting of the petitioner’s saw mill from the place whereit was being run to premises bearing House No. 2-18/61 ofBoyagiri of Kollapur Town. Within five days thereafter, he issued theimpugned proceedings cancelling permission given by him earlier.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 has not given any notice or opportunity to the petitioner before cancellingthe permission granted by him earlier. A perusal of the impugnedorder does not show that the same was preceded by an action-oriented notice. The law is well-settled that any order which involvesadverse civil consequences shall be preceded by a notice to theperson likely to be aggrieved by such an order ( See State of Orissav. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei[[1]],A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India[[2]], S.L.Kapoor v. Jagmohan[[3]], Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Unionof India[[4]], Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[[5]]and Olga Tellis v.Bombay Municipal Corporation[[6]]).
Since the impugned order is evidently passed in violation of theprinciples of natural justice, without going into the merits of the case, Ideem it proper to set aside the same. Respondent No.2 is, however,left free to initiate fresh proceedings after giving notice and opportunityto the petitioner to submit his objections to the proposed action.Ordered accordingly.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No. 36537of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed.
27.12.2007
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
ksld
[1]AIR 1967 SC 1269[2]AIR 1970 SC 150[3]AIR 1981 SC 136[4]AIR 1981 SC 818 = (1981) 1 SCC 664[5]AIR 1978 SC 597[6]AIR 1986 SC 180