The State Of Telangana vs M/S.Jabwani Agro Tech
2021 Latest Caselaw 3042 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                      AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

                     W.A.Nos.557 & 558 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT:            (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     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.

            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.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 27.10.2021 JSU