Disposed

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Packaged Drinking Water, v. The Tahsildar

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Jul 2022WP/16766/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the illegal closing of a packaging water plant, the court disposed of the matter by converting an interim order prohibiting operation until licenses are obtained into a final dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of by making the interim order (prohibiting operation until licenses are obtained) the final order.

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Packaged Drinking Water, Vs The… — Consumer Protection | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 16766 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

As there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner on 12.07.2022 the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “for Dismissal”. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner.

¶4

Heard Sri. Vinod K. Reddy, Government Pleader for Respondent No. 2.

¶5

The present Writ Petition came to be filed to declare the action of the 2^nd Respondent in closing the Petitioner’s industry, as illegal, improper and incorrect.

¶6

It is the case of the Petitioner herein that, he has established a Micro Enterprise under the name and style M/s. Sri Lakshmi Packaged Drinking Water for manufacturing of packaged drinking water at Survey No.380B, N.Mydukur, S. Mydukur Mandal, Kadapa District. The Petitioner claims to have obtained all the requisite statutory clearances from the concerned authorities. According to him, the Gram Panchayat also accorded permission for establishment of the same.

¶7

While things stood thus, on 09.01.2010, the 2^nd Respondent herein is said to have seized the water plant on the ground that the Petitioner has not obtained I.S.I.

¶8

¶9

Certificate. It is said that, an order came to be passed seizing the Unit without providing any opportunity to the Petitioner to explain his stand. The inaction has lead to filing of the Writ Petition.

¶10

A Counter came to be filed by the 2^nd Respondent disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It is stated in paragraph No. 3 that the Petitioner has not only failed to obtain the I.S.I. Certificate issued by the Industries Department, but also did not obtain a Certificate from the Medical Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Since, it is in gross violation of the stipulated norms and regulations, the authorities have seized the plant. It is stated that, a representation was made by the Petitioner seeking lifting of seizure, on the ground that necessary modifications will be carried out to fulfill the terms and conditions of the I.S.I. Certificate. But, no modifications in the plant fulfilling the terms have been carried out.

¶11

By an Order, dated 21.07.2010, this Court while issuing Rule Nisi passed the following Order:

¶12

“W.P. No. 16766 of 2010

¶13

Rule Nisi. Call for records.

¶14

Notice returnable in Four weeks.

¶15

W.P.M.P. No. 21121 of 2010

¶16

Pending further orders, if there is any inspection team from I.S.I. the Respondents shall allow them to inspect the water plant. However, the Petitioner shall not be allowed to run the water plant till all the required licenses are obtained by him.

¶17

Notice.”

¶18

¶19

A reading of the interim order would show that the Petitioner is not permitted to run the Unit unless he obtains all the required licenses. Making the interim order as final order, namely that the Petitioner can run his unit after satisfying the requirements of law, the present Writ Petition is disposed of . No order as to costs.

¶20

1. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶21

shall stand closed.

¶22

_______________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶23

Dated: 13.07.2022 SM.

¶24

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶26

W.P. No. 16766 of 2010

¶27

Date: 13.07.2022

¶28

SM.

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Packaged Drinking Water, v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Packaged Drinking Water, v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Panduranga Rao Vs The District Panchayat Officer

Ummaboyina Srinivasulu, Vs The District Collector,-cum-Election Authority

Ch. Pardhasaradhi, Vs The District Panchayat Officer

Veeramalla Narasamma, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pitta Lakshmi Narayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

U.Malla Reddy Vs The District Election Authority-Cum-