The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking writ of mandamus against interference with bio-products distribution. The petitioner withdrew the petition at the hearing, leading to disposal of the matter and related interim relief.
Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; interim relief petition disposed as infructuous.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24159 of 2014
Date: 21.10.2014
Between:
M/s. Yunix Agros, Rep. by its Managing Partner Smt.P.Indumathi.
.. Petitioner
and The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, State of Andhra Pradesh, Opp. L.B.Stadium, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
.. Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. B.V.Aparna Lakshmi for Mr.C.V.Bhaskar Reddy. Counsel for the Respondent: GP for Agriculture (A.P.)
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief:
“For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of Writ petition, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in interfering with the manufacture, sale and distribution of bioproducts of petitioner-firm like Yuva +, Yuvistar, Yunix Gold, Yuni Grow, SK-5, Revange, Yuvataar, 02, Yunger, Yunger +, Yunogen, Yunix Hike, Yuni Green, Yuni Pro, Yuni Print, Yuni Clean, Yuni Control & Tarzan, by issuing Memo No.PP.II(1)2085/2005, dated 21.01.2006 and Letter No.PP.II(1)2085/2005, dated 21.01.2006 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondent not to interfere with in any manner in the manufacture, sale and distribution of our bio-products including from the licensed premises of the dealers/stockists under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the Fertilizers Control (Order) Act, 1985 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
At the hearing, Smt. B.V.Aparna Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Mr. C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, requested for permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition.
The request of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted and the Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.30220 of 2014 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
_____________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
21st October, 2014 v v
M/s. Yunix Agros Rep. by its Managing Partner Smt.P.Indumathi
The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture, State of Andhra Pradesh
C.V.Nagarguna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
