Telangana High Court
WP/38865/2013 of M/s Singhania Foods International, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.38865 OF 2013 Dated 31st December 2013 BETWEEN: 1. M/s. Singhania Foods International and two others. …PETITIONERS AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38865 OF 2013
Dated 31st December 2013
BETWEEN:
1. M/s. Singhania Foods International and two others.
…PETITIONERS
AND
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary,Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others.
…RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the petitioners: Mrs. Rachana Reddy for Mr. B.Chandrasen Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Assistant Government Pleader forRevenue The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38865 OF 2013
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside theproceedings in Lr.No.B/2381/2012 dated 07.10.2013 of respondentNo.2.
A perusal of the impugned letter addressed by respondent No.2to respondent No.3 would show that the same is in the nature of reporton the entitlement of the petitioner for issue of No Objection Certificate(NOC) for the proposed installation of 2x54 KL Bulk Storage ofPropane at Survey No.48 of Jalpally Village, Saroornagar Mandal.
At the hearing, it is not disputed that no final decision has beentaken by respondent No.3 on the report of respondent No.2. By theimpugned proceedings, the right of the petitioners is not determined. Ifthe petitioners chose to dispute the contents of the report of respondentNo.2, they shall be free to make an appropriate representation beforerespondent No.3 and request the latter to reject the report and grantNOC based on the material that is already stated to have beenfurnished to respondent No.3 by the petitioners.
Page 1 of 2
In the above view of the matter, I do not find any reason toentertain this Writ Petition. As observed above, the petitioners areentitled to make a comprehensive representation to respondent No.3with reference to the contents of the impugned report of respondentNo.2 within one week from the date of receipt of this order. Within onemonth thereafter, respondent No.3 shall consider the petitioners’application for grant of NOC and take an independent decision withoutbeing solely guided by the opinion of respondent No.2, with referenceto the material that may have been submitted/may be submitted by thepetitioners and communicate the decision to them within the abovestipulated time.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is dismissed.As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WP.MP.No.48308of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief shall stand disposed ofas infructuous.
_____________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
31[st] December 2013RRB
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…