w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ravi Kumar Brick Industry (RKB), Rep. by its Proprietor Pavuluri Subhashini v/s The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Secretariat & Others

    W.P. No. 5815 of 2022

    Decided On, 08 March 2022

    At, High Court of Andhra Pradesh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

    For the Petitioner: Santhisree Vallabhaneni, Venkat Chalasani, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, G.P. for Panchayat Raj, R2 & R3, G.P. for Revenue, R4, I. Koti Reddy, R5, V. Surendar, R6, N. Harinath, Advocates.



Judgment Text

The petitioner submits that her husband had started a Brick Making Unit in the year 1998 along with her father-in-law. Subsequently, a factory licence was also obtained in the year 2004 and another unit was started in the year 2014 in Survey No.192-11 near Maisakapuram, Birlangi Village, Ichapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District. The petitioner submits that the brick kiln was operated strictly in accordance with law and after payment of all licence fee etc. At that stage, the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar has issued a notice bearing Rc.No.379/2021 B, dated 04.02.2022 directing the petitioner herein to shut down the brick kiln within 30 days. This notice is said to have been issued on the ground that the petitioner had violated the guidelines for establishment of brick kilns, issued under G.O.Ms.No.80, Environment, Forests, Science and Technology (Environment) Department, dated 22.04.2010.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the said notice. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said notice is in effect an order of closure and the same has been passed without any enquiry and without any opportunity being given to the petitioner to set-forth her case.

3. The petitioner further contends that the brick kiln of the petitioner falls within the white category and as such, there is no violation of any of the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No. 80, Environment, Forests, Science and Technology (Environment) Department, dated 22.04.2010.

4. Heard Smt.Santhisree Vallabhaneni learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri Venkat Chalasani learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri I.Koti Reddy learned standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

5. A perusal of the impugned show cause notice shows that it is, for all practical purposes, an order of closure. It is also clear from the contents of the said show cause notice that the said notice has been issued without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to set-forth her case and would have to be treated as a violation of principles of natural justice.

6. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings bearing Rc.No.379/2021 B, dated 04.02.2022 with a further direction that the said notice shall be treated as a show cause notice with liberty to the petitioner to file her objections with such material as she deems fit before the 3rd respondent, within a period of four weeks. The 3rd respondent shall consider the objections filed by the petitioner and pass orders containing reasons after giving t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

he petitioner an opportunity of hearing. This exercise shall be conducted expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
O R