WP/306/2026 of Sri.Nimma Malla Reddy Vs The District Collector and District Magisgtrate on 7 January 2026

[ 34e4 I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO: 306 OF 2026

Between:

Sri.Nimma Malla Reddy, S/o,Nimma Chandra Reddy, Aged about 66 years, Occ ; Agriculture, R/o.H.No.2-24, Bandaram Village Kondapaka Mandai Siddipet District Telangana 502277.

....PETtTtONER

AND

1. The District Coilector and District Magistrate, Siddipet District, Telangana.

2. The District Manager Civil Supplies, Siddipet District.

3. The Tahsildar, Kondapaka Mandal Siddipet District, Telangana.

4. Pollution Control Board, Hyderabad.

5. Paladagu Chandra Reddy, S/o.Chilaka Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ; Agriculture, Rice Mill, R/o.Bandaram Village Kondapaka Mandal Siddipet District, Telangana

6. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an Order or Direction or a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in not taking action to the letter of the first respondent District Collect No.H4l428312023- 413, dated 12.2.2024 is illegal, arbitraryand abetting the illegal action of the Sth respondent and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to initiate appropriate action agairrst the 5th respondent and order closure of the illegal rice mill.

|.A.NO:1 Ot:2026

Petiticn Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavil: filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Flespondents 1 to 4 to seize the illegal rice mill belonging to the Sth respondent.

Counselfor the Petitioner : M/s PERUMANDLA KALPANA

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 6: GP FOR REVENUE

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI K.DEVENDER, SC FOR TELANGANA

STATE CIVIIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI ZEESHAN ADNAN MAHMOOD, SC FOR

TELANGANIA STATE POLLUTION BOARD

Gounselfor the Respondent No.S : -

The Court rnade the following ORDER

r----

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT: HYDERABAD

HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K. LAKSHMAN

AND

HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE VAKTTI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

w

P

ION

o.306

F2

DATE:07-01- 2026

Between:

Mr. Nimma Malla Reddy

Vs.

The District Collector & Districr Magisrrate, Siddipet Districr, Telangana A Otn"r, Respondents This Court made the follorving:

o

oRDER

(Per Hon'ble Sri .lustice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mr. poluri Bhaskar, reamecr counser representing Ms.

Perumandla Kalpana, Iearned counser for the petitioner, Mr. K.

Devender, learned standing counsel for Telangana state civil Supplies corporation appearing for respondent No.2, rearned Assistant Governmenr pieacier ior Revenue appearing on behaif <lf respondent Nos.l and 3 and Mr. zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned standing counsel for Telangana State poilution Board appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

.. Petitioner

KL,J & VRKR,J

W.P No 306 of 2026

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in taking action on the letter of respondent No'l, dated 12.02.2024 as illegal.

3. l\ccording to the petitioner, respondent No.5 is running a Rice Mill without obtaining any perrnission including Consent for Establishment (CFE)/Consent for Operation (CFO) frorn respondent No.4.

4. lVIr. Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, leamed Standing Counsel appearing ,rn behalf of respondent No.4, on instructions, would submit that the subject Rice Mill is not falling in any of 66 Categories notified under Board's Order. However, respondent No'5 has to obtain acknowledgement from respondent No.4 Board- Since there is allegation of pollution against respondent No.5, respondent No'4 has to take action against respondent No.5 in accordance with law'

5. Perusal of record would reveal that the petitioner has not submitted any representation to respondent No.4 with specific request to take action against respondent No.5. He has submitted representartion only to respondent No.1, who in turn marked a copy to responderrt I)o.4.

n

i

aJ

KL,J & VRKR..I

W.P. No.306 of 2026

Telangana.

/

6. In the light of the above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to respondent No.4 with a specific request to take action against respondent No.5, and on submission of such representation, it is for respondent No.5 to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law including affording an opportunity to respondent No.5. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

4s a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

SD/.K.MADHAVI

//TRUE COPY/

ECTION OFFICER

\

To

1. The

The

The

The

The

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Telangana at Hyderabad.

for the State of Telangana at

Two

Hyderabad.[OUTI

7. oire CC to Mls penuuANDLA KALPANA, Advocate [oPUc]

8. ONE CC tO SRI K.DEVENDER, SC FOR TELANGANA STATE CIVIL

SUPPLIES CORPORATION, Advocate (OPUC)

9. ONE CC tO SRI ZEESHAN ADNAN MAHMOOD, SC FOR TELANGANA

STATE POLLUTION BOARD, Advocate (OPUC)

1O.Two CD Copies

SA

PMK W

a

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710112026