The State of Telangana v. Mamidala Ramakrishna, S/ late M. Malleshwar, Owner of M/s Sree Venkateshwara

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order made in W.P. No.1131 l2O2O, dated.16.8.2l21, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Between: Mamida.la Ramakrishna, S/ late M. Malleshwar, owner of M/s sree venkateshwara Saw,Mill and Timber Dgpot Klagh.aznagar at H.No.1-3-10, Ambedkar Road, Knaghaz'ragar, Komaram Bheem Asifabad district (erstrrtrile Adilabad district). ANQ

1. The State of Telangana, reprcsented by ib princbal Secretarv to Qover.nn-re.ntr.EnvironmEnt Foresis, Science a6O technotogioepi., fetinlaria Secretariat, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS

2. The Prl. chief consenrator of Forests And Head of the Forest Foroe (HoFF), Telangana Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3. Th,: Conservator of Forests, Adilabad Circle, Adilabad. 4. Thr: Forest Divisional.Officer, Kaghaznagai Division, Kaghaznagai, Komaram Bh,eem,Asifabad district (erstuhilSAdilab:d district).' "

5. Thr: Forest Divisional officer/ District Forest officer, Asifabad division, - - - Asifabad, Komaram Bheem Asifabad district (erstu,hile Aditabad aisiri"ti. ... RESPONDENTS'APPELLANTS Pelition under section Is1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Higfr court may be pleased to vacate tht: interim orders passed in w.A No so7 of 2oz1 dated 30logt2o21. Counsel lbr the Appellants : GP FOR FORESTS Counsel for the Respondent: SRI G.RAMAN GOUD The Court made the following: JUDGilENT IIIGIICOURT FORTIIE STATE OF TELAI\IGANA ATHYDERABAD TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN ANI) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRITAPP EAL No.507 of 2021 Date:20.01.2026 Between: The State of Telangana" Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govemment, Environmen! Forests, Science & Technology Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad- 50o022 and fourothers. And Appellants Mamidala Ramakrishna, S/o. Late M- Malleshwar, Owner of IVUs. Sree Venkteshwara Saw Mill and Timber Depot, Khagaztngar, Komaram Bheem Asifabad District Respondent JI]DGMENT: (Per Hon'bte Sri Justice KLal<shman) Heard learned Govemment Pleader for Forest and Sri G. Raman Goud, learned counsel for the respondent' 2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated

16.08.2021in Writ Petition No'tl3l of 2020, the appellants 2 preferr€d the intra court present appeal, under Clause I 5 of the Le:tters Patent.

3. The respondent/writ petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order dated 16.01.2019, which was confirmed by the appellate authority vide order O2.A\.ZOZ0. Vide said order dated 16.01.2019, the Authorized Officer/Forest Divisional Officer, Khagaznagar, Appellant Nc,.4 cancelled the license of the respondent. The said proceedings were confirmed by the appellate authority/appellant No.3 on 02.01.2020. Challenging the said orclers, the writ petitioner f,rled the aforesaid writ petition.

4. The learned Government Pleader for Forests would contend that the appellants have filed counter in the writ petition narrating all the facts including the provisions of the Act, rules and relevant provisions of the Statute etc: They have also filed copies of the statements of the proprietor of the 3 Saw mill and driver of the vehicle. They have also filed additional statemenb and copy of POR.

5. [t is not the case of the appellants ttrat they have visited writ petitioner Saw mill and they have found any irregularity in the records maintained by them including the stock. It is the specific case of the appellants herein that a case has been registered vide P.O.R. No.l9l0l77 dated 27.09.2018 by the staff of Forest Check Post, Asifabad of Asifabad Forest Division against the respondent herein Sri Mamidala Ramakrishna, who is the owner of IWs. Sree Venkateshwara Saw Mill and Timber Depot, Khagaznagar of Klrugaznagar Range of Kaghaznagar Division for the offence under Sections 2O and 29 of APF Act, 1967 md 44 (ixii) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 alleging that on the instructions of the respondent the driver of Tata Van bearing No. TS 01 W 5212 was illegally transporting forest produce i.e., teak round logs 15/1.590 cmt valuing Rs.1,,36,775/- and teak rough sizes lIlO.820 cm valuing Rs.78,924/-. Accordingly, the aforesaid vehicle along 4 w:ith forest produce i.e., teak logs were seized on the same day. The statement of the respondent i.e., owner of:the aforesaid vehicle discloses that his driver has taken away the vehicle without his notice and he is not aware of transportation of itlegal material in the said vehicle. on the other hand, the statement of the driver discloses that onry on the instructions of the respondent herein, he has proceeded to Jainoor vil{age shivar, wherein he met one unknown person and then went inside the forest, wherein three unknown persons loaded the illegal teak timber into the vehicle. Thus, it is the specific case of the appellants that being owner of the said vehicle, it is the responsibility of the respordent to take all the precautions to ensure that the vehich is not used without his knowledge. Further, the respondent has failed to produce any evidence to prove his innocence. Hence, the appellants contend that having foltowed the procedure laid down under law and they have also issued show cause notice and called for the explanation from the writ petitioner. Thereby, they have 5 afforded an opportunity to the writ petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, the appellant No.4/competent authority passed impugned orders revoking the license issuodto the writ petitioner. [t is a reasoned order.

6. Thus, the appellants herein filed counler in the aforesaid writ petition narrating the aforesaid facts and also filed and also filed copies of the documents in support of the same. They have also specifically rclied upon Rule ll(l) of the Telangana Wood Based Industries (Regulation) Rules, 2016 in G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 26.09.2016, relevant provisions of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967, Rules made thereunder, the Telangana Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 and also the principle laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments, to contend that they have followed the procedure laid down under law while passing the impugned revocation order of the appellant No.4 confirmed by appellant No.3. Without considering the said aspects, the learned Single Judge, vide impugned order, set aside the proceedings holding that the writ 6 petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle and as well as ovuner of the Saw mill. The counter affrdavit is silent with regard to any inspection being made to veri$ whether any contraband is present in the Saw rnill with the Saw mill re<nrds, or any kind of irregularity or seizure of contraband frcrm the Saw mill of the writ petitioner. Hence, the appellants miserably failed to establish involvement of the writ petitioner Saw mill in the alleged offence.

7. It is the specific contention ofthe appellants herein that Mr. Mamidala Ramakrishna, who is the proprietor of writ pelitioner Saw mill i.e., Sree Venkateshwara Saw Mi.ll and Timber Depo! is also the owner of Tata Van bearing No. TS 0l W 5212. Thus, the appellants have established the nexus between the writ petitioner Saw mill and the vehicle.

8. [t is also specific contention ofthe appellants herein that the appellana have revoked the license of the writ petitioner on the ground that it has violated the provisions of the Forest 7 , Act and ttre afrrementioned rules etc. By fol{owing ttre said ., procdure only, the appellan6 revoked the lioense of the writ .. , ,,, ] petitioner and the same w{ls confirmed by tlre.. appellate authority. Despite the said specifio contentiorU ttellea.r,ea Single Judge did not consider the said aspect in the impugired :i order. Therefore, the irapugned order is not in odmideration <if the aforesaid aspects and provisions of law including the statements of tlre proprietor of the writ petitioner Saw mill and owner of the said vehicle.

9. [n the light of the aforesaiddiscussion, this writ appeal is allowed and accordingly the impqgned order dated 16.08.2021 in W.P.Nq.ll3l of 2O20 is set aside and the lnafferi is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for disposal of the same in accordance with law by considerirg *re aforesaid aspects including pleadings of ttre parties ard also the documents Flled by bofrr the parties. Liberty is granted to the writ petitioner to request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the said writ petition as expeditiously as possible. The learned 8 Single Judge shall decidp the aforesaid writ' petition corrsidering the material available, withbut being influeqoed by any of the 6bservations made in the present judgment, ', j r ',..' . As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications" if, any, shall stand closed. \ To, ,/TRUE COPYII SD/.ii. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR ., G SECTION OFFICER --'- vvvr'v"' I rru Telangana at Hyderibad.'- T:eo3:'#gir?r-3lJ?:fir. 'I?:",:ff f iil-J:',9ffiX|"T,p,:"?fl,L"'g#"".,nfu f ',,I???gffi r,, 2' The Section officer, WP(Non-Service) seetion, High Court for the State of 3' The Section offioer, Posting Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at o statistics section, Hish court ror the state or 5. Ihq Section Offioeq ER Section, High Court for the Stat6 of Telangana at 6. Two ccs !o GIJOR FOREST, High court for the state of rerangana at 7. one cc to sRr GUNDRATT,RAMAN GouD, Advocate. topucl 8. Two,CD Copies. Hyderrabad.tou[ vvsrr 'v' r'' Hyderabad BSK BS 6i'l- a UT .J .',?\ 6! ,t{tcfl COURT TED:20lO1tZOZ6 J,UDGMENT WA.No;Ot ot 2021 ALLOWING,TI{E WRIT D COSTS ( .iy