The State Of Telangana vs M/S Patidar Industries
2021 Latest Caselaw 3130 Tel

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


            WRIT APPEAL Nos.565 and 566 of 2021

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




     Learned counsel for the appellants has straight away

drawn the attention of this Court towards the order dated

27.10.2021 passed in W.A.Nos.557 and 558 of 2021.                                      The

said order reads as under:

             "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."

In the light of the aforesaid order, the present writ

appeals also deserve to be allowed and accordingly allowed.

The order passed in W.A.Nos.557 and 558 of 2021 shall be

applicable as mutatis mutandis in the present cases also.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ

appeals shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 29.10.2021 ES