Allowed

P Raghavendra v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jul 2021WP/13047/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged a penalty order imposed without notice, arguing violation of natural justice. The court held that notice was required as the situation was not an emergency. The petition was allowed, setting aside the order and directing authorities to issue a show cause notice and give the petitioner a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned penalty order set aside; petitioner given 2 weeks to submit objections; 3rd respondent directed to consider objections and pass speaking order.

P Raghavendra Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

W.P.No.13047 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner is the Managing Partner of a Firm, which is running a hospital in Kurnool. The 2^nd respondent by proceedings in R.C.No.PENALTY/COVID-19/KNL/2021, dated 26.05.2021, had imposed a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs on the petitioner’s firm.

¶5

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has now approached this Court.

¶6

Sri K.Viswanatham, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order was passed without any notice to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to set out the true and correct facts. He submits that on account of violation of the principles of natural justice, the impugned order requires to be set-aside.

¶7

The learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health would submit that the impugned proceedings have been issued under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. He further submits that there is no provision for issuance of notice before passing an order of penalty against the arraying parties, under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. He submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any lacuna and has been passed after a proper review of the facts.

¶8

RRR,J 2 W.P.No.13047 of 2021

¶9

In similar circumstances, this Court by an order dated 16.06.2021 in W.P.No.11101 of 2021, had granted interim directions in a similar case in which penalty being levied.

¶10

I am of the view that in such cases and in the facts of the present case, there is a need to serve notice on the petitioner before passing the impugned order of penalty. It is clear that the said order of penalty was not an order that required to be passed on account of any emergency. It is an order of penalty which could have been passed in the usual course after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner.

¶11

Grant of stay in the present case would only prolong the issue, and it would be appropriate to allow this writ petition by setting aside the impugned order while giving opportunity to the 2^nd respondent to take action in accordance with law and after giving due opportunity to the petitioner.

¶12

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order vide proceedings in R.C.No.PENALTY/COVID-19/KNL/2021, dated 26.05.2021, with liberty to the 3^rd respondent to initiate action and take an appropriate decision in the matter after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and after considering the objections and material that the petitioner would place before the 3^rd respondent.

¶13

For this purpose, the impugned order shall be treated as a show cause notice to the petitioner and the

¶14

W.P.No.13047 of 2021

¶15

¶16

petitioner shall submit his objections to the proposed action within a period of two weeks from today. Thereupon, the 3^rd respondent shall consider the objections of the petitioner and pass a speaking order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶18

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶19

07^th July, 2021 RJS

¶20

RRR,J 4 W.P.No.13047 of 2021

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶22

W.P.No.13047 of 2021

¶23

07^th July, 2021

¶24

RJS

P Raghavendra v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Raghavendra v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Dr. Gudipati Swamy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. K.Beeran Kutty, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gudipati Sri Ramakrishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Naralasetti Tatarao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vutukuri Rajarao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Duggisetty Jaya Prada, Vs Sri K.V.N Chakradhar Babu