State Of Telangana And 2 Others vs Anil Wood Pac Industry
2022 Latest Caselaw 3531 Tel

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
        THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


                        I.A.No.1 of 2022
                             in/and
                  Writ Appeal No.428 of 2022

JUDGMENT:     (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



      Heard Ms. D.Pramada Reddy, learned Government

Pleader for Forests appearing for the appellants and

Mr. Ramesh Vishwanathula, learned counsel for the

respondent.

2. Appellants before us are State of Telangana,

Environment and Forests Department, and its officials.

The writ appeal is directed against the order dated

26.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.21266 of 2022 filed by the respondent as the writ

petitioner.

3. In the writ petition, respondent has challenged

legality and validity of the order dated 12.12.2021 whereby

No Objection Certificate (NOC) for establishment of

Secondary Wood Based Industry unit under the Telangana

Wood Based Industries (Regulations) Rules, 2016, was

declined. Respondent further came up with the grievance

that his premises were locked and therefore sought

unlocking.

4. By the aforesaid order dated 26.04.2022, learned

Single Judge ordered as follows:

"Having regard to the above, the impugned order is suspended and the official respondents are directed to immediately unlock the subject premises. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner violates any of the Telangana Wood Based Industries (Regulations) Rules, 2016, the respondent authorities are free to take necessary action against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law."

5. According to learned counsel for the appellants,

learned Single Judge had relied upon interim orders

passed in identical writ petitions. However, those

interlocutory orders have been set aside by the appellate

Court. Against the decision of the appellate Court,

petitioners had filed SLP before the Supreme Court but the

SLP was dismissed. She, therefore, submits that learned

Single Judge was not justified in following the aforesaid

orders and granting the interim relief.

6. On a perusal of the order dated 26.04.2022, a prima

facie view can be taken that learned Single Judge did not

entirely rely upon the interim orders passed in identical

matters. At least, the operative portion does not indicate

so.

7. Be that as it may, since the order impugned is an

interlocutory order, appellants would be at liberty to file

vacate stay petition, in which event, learned Single Judge

may consider the same and pass appropriate order.

8. Without expressing any opinion on merit, we grant

liberty to the appellants to file such vacate stay petition,

which may be considered by the learned Single Judge at an

early date.

9. Subject to the observations made above, writ appeal

is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2022 shall also

stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to

costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J 07.07.2022 vs