The State Of Telangana And 3 Other vs M/S Anjani Agro Tech
2021 Latest Caselaw 3184 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                          AND
        THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI


            WRIT APPEAL Nos.572 and 580 of 2021


COMMON JUDGMENT:             (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)




    This Court in W.A.Nos.557 and 558 of 2021 has

passed the following common judgment on 27.10.2021:

            "The facts of the case reveal that large number
    of writ petitions were preferred by the respective
    petitioners praying for issuance of writ of mandamus
    and any other appropriate writ, direction or order for
    considering the their respective furniture units as
    exempted under the provisions of Telangana Wood
    Based Industries (Regulations) Rules, 2016 and Wood
    Based      Industries          (Establishment            and     Regulation)
    Guidelines, 2016 and for declaring the seizure notice
    in respect of their respective units dated 10.12.2018
    as illegal and void.               The learned Single Judge has
    passed a common order in ten cases on 05.03.2019.
    Against the common order, W.A.No.291 of 2019 was
    preferred and the Division Bench of this court has
    allowed the writ appeal by an order dated 24.04.2019,
    which reads as under:-

                    "Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

                    "It is, indeed, trite to state that in a catena of the
            cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed
            that mere issuance of a notice does not violate the
            fundamental right or the civil right of a person. For,
            issuance of notice is merely to give the concerned party an
            opportunity of hearing by the concerned authority.
            Therefore, the Apex Court has repeatedly held that when
            a notice is challenged before the Constitutional Court, the
            Constitutional Court should refrain from interfering with
            such a notice.

                    Moreover, it is the settled principle of law that at
            the interim stage, the final relief cannot be granted.
                                     2




               The learned Single Judge prima facie cannot
      observe that the respondent company falls within the

proviso to Rule 3 of the Rules. However, such an observation could not be made even on the prima facie basis without appreciating all the evidence led by both the sides.

Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already issued crystal clear directions to the States to ensure that unlicensed Sawmills or Veneer Industries are not permitted to operate, unless they seek license under the concerned rules, and considering the fact that according to the respondent itself, it is running a Veneer Industry, as is apparent from its application for granting the license, the learned Single Judge is not justified in concluding that the respondent falls within the proviso to Rule 3 of the Rules. Hence, the learned Single Judge was not justified in staying the operation of the impugned seizure notice.

For the reasons stated above, this appeal is hereby allowed. The order dated 05.03.2019 qua the respondent, namely, M/s.CNL Agri Tech, is set aside."

Thus, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which was common in ten cases, was set aside. Thereafter, SLP.No.13013 of 2019 was preferred by the petitioner therein. The Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP and has passed the following order:-

"We find no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

It is made clear that any observations made by the Division Bench or by the Single Bench of the High Court will not influence the authority concerned in considering the application of the petitioner."

In the considered opinion of this court, once the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been set aside in the writ appeal by a Coordinate Bench of this court, which is also impugned in the present writ appeals, the present writ appeals deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 05.03.2019, in respect of the respondents in the present appeals, is hereby quashed.

The miscellaneous applications pending in these writ appeals, if any, shall stand closed."

The aforesaid judgment shall be applicable mutatis

mutandis to the present cases also.

Resultantly, the writ appeals are allowed.

The miscellaneous applications pending in these

writ appeals, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ P.MADHAVI DEVI, J 02.11.2021 vs