Allowed

Polam Krishna Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jul 2022WP/39759/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a trade license. The court held that although the licensee had applied for a fresh license, the impugned order remained ineffective. The cancellation order was set aside due to violation of natural justice for refusing reasons on the rejection.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order canceling the trade license in Roc.No.53/S.I.-20/2017 is set aside.

Polam Krishna Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.39759 of 2018

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioner was carrying on the business of dealing with Waste paper and Scrap in premises bearing Door No.7-17120/1, Third Line, Srinagar Colony, Guntur, after obtaining trade license for carrying on this activity. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 28.12.2017, from the 2^nd respondent, directing the petitioner to submit an explanation as to why the trade license given to the petitioner should not be cancelled.

¶4

Even though, no reasons are set out in the show cause notice, the petitioner is said to have made enquiries, and came to know that some of the neighbours had given a complaint against him and sought the cancellation of the trade license. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have filed his reply. However, it is said that, the 2^nd respondent, without considering the said reply, passed an order, canceling the trade license given to the petitioner.

¶5

Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2^nd respondent without answering any of the issues raised by the petitioner had simply rejected the reply of the petitioner stating that the 2^nd respondent is not satisfied with the contents of the reply. He submits that such a rejection is clearly a rejection without assigning any reasons and needs to be set aside on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice.

¶6

Sri M.Manohar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent would submit that the period of the license ended on 31.03.2018 and as such, the writ petition itself is infructuous.

¶7

Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the

¶8

petitioner, in reply, submits that even though the period of license has elapsed, the said order would stand in the way of the petitioner, seeking a fresh license and as such, the writ petition is not infructuous.

¶9

Having heard both sides and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the said order clearly suffers from the vice of lack of reasons and the same would have to be treated as a violation of principles of natural justice.

¶10

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings in Roc.No.53/S.I.-20/2017, dated 03.02.2018 while leaving it open to the 2^nd respondent, to consider any fresh application made by the petitioner, for grant of trade license, in accordance with law and taking into account the surrounding circumstances of the case.

¶11

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

NPR

¶13

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶14

14.07.2022

¶15

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.39759 of 2018

¶17

14.07.2022

¶18

NPR

Polam Krishna Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polam Krishna Reddy, 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

Kankanala Ramabrahmam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Veluri Kameswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Sajja Kanaka Durga, Vs the State of Ap

V.Ashok Kumar,Tiruvuru,Krishna Dist.,a.P. Vs the State of a.P.,Mun.Admn.,Amaravati,and 3 Otrs.

Vegesana Satyanarayana Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Floyd Qc and Engineering Consultancy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh