Disposed

G.Venkatasubba Naidu, v. The State Of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Sept 2019WP/12911/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the respondent public authority to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.08.2019 regarding disturbances to his wine shop and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

G.Venkatasubba Naidu, Vs The State Of A.P. — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.12911 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This is a Writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the respondents interfering with the possession of petitioner’s wine shop situated at D.No.9-50 in Sy.No.13 Upparapalli Avilala Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶4

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader of Prohibition & Excise.

¶5

The petitioner has obtained a licene for the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liaquor and Foreign Liquor by shop for the lease period from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2019 at Tirupati. The Wine shop of the petitioner is situated in the premises bearing D.No.9-50, Upparapalli Road, Avilala. During the subsistence of lease period, the petitioner is entitled to continue in the said premises.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the permit expires by 30.06.2019, but the respondents have been disturbing the petitioner’s business, threatening that they would demolish the shop. In that connection, the petitioner gave a representation dated 31.08.2019 to the District Collector, Chittoor for a direction to the concerned authorities not to disturb his rights over the said premises.

¶7

The public authority has to respond to the representations of the people in a democratic set-up. The grievances of the people are to be redressed. They have to be

¶8

¶9

educated and be helped in their just demands of fundamental rights.

¶10

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 31.08.2019 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

with the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶12

Consequently, all the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

_______________________ G SHYAM PRASAD,J

¶14

Date: 13-09-2019 Gvl

¶15

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO.12911 OF 2019

¶18

Date : 13- 09-2019

¶19

Gvl

¶20

G.Venkatasubba Naidu, v. The State Of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Venkatasubba Naidu, v. The State Of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Masthan Vs the State of Ap

Surya Wines Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Samala Sivaram, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dudala Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Sreekanth Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Golla Nagendra Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh