An appeal against a single judge's order declining a writ petition challenging rejection of an NOC for fire crackers. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding no interference with the impugned order is necessary.
Writ appeal dismissed. No costs. Pending applications dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No. 550 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
Paluri Rama Rao, S/o. Venkata Raju, aged 70 years, Occ: Business, D.No.22-5-13, I Town Hall Street, Visakhapatnam and another. …..Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary(Home) Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi and others.
…. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. R. Siva Sai Swarup Counsel for respondent Nos.1,2 and 5 : Mr. V. Maheswara Reddy, Government Pleader Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 : Mr. N. Harinath, Assistant Solicitor General of India
ORAL ORDER
Dt.14.09.2021
(Per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr. R. Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. V. Maheswara Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and Mr. N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2
3
“ 7. In the instant case, a reading of the impugned order clearly shows that the 1st petitioner was heard in person before passing the impugned order. Therefore, it is not a case of violation of principles of natural justice. Further, in terms of Rule 115(1) (c) the impugned order was passed on the ground that there is no safety to the inmates of the locality at present. Therefore, it is not a case where the order was passed contrary to any express provision of law or prevailing rule. Therefore, it cannot be considered as an exceptional case to entertain the writ petition despite the fact that the right of appeal is provided against the impugned order. Therefore, this Court do not find any valid legal ground to entertain this writ petition which was filed without exhausting the remedy of right to appeal provided under the above Rules.
8. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to prefer an appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority prescribed under the aforesaid Rules. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.”
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
BLV
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No.550 of 2021
14th day of September, 2021
BLV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether availability of alternative remedy of appeal bars jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when there is alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
Whether interference is called for with the lower court's order declining the writ petition.
Paluri Rama Rao and another
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary(Home) Department
Arup Kumar Goswami
Ninala Jayasurya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
