The court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus against the closure and sealing of godowns by relying on a previous order directing respondents not to take coercive action.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.37648 OF 2017
O R D E R :
This petition is filed for the following relief:
“…. To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, ‘ declaring the notice issued by the 2nd respondent in Notice dated 26.04.2017, directing the writ petitioner not to run the trades as per HMC Act in the Godowns of the petitioner by closing such trades with immediate effect and subsequent sealing of the premises, as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and without issuing notice and without following the due process of law and consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s business of storage of packed drums in the godowns”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the ‘lis’ in the writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 12.07.2017 passed by this Court in WP.No.21771 of 2017 and the same is not disputed by Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
Recording the said submission of the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order dated 12.07.2017 passed by this Court in WP.No.21771 of 2017, directing the petitioner to submit its written detailed explanation, if any, within seven days from the date of receipt of the order and the respondents shall dispose of the said explanation by passing a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner within
2
one month from the date of receipt of the said explanation and in the meantime, not to take any coercive action. Further grievance if any of the petitioner is left open. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 09.11.2017 t k.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
WP.No.21771 of 2017Followed¶6
Petitioner (Writ Petitioner)
2nd Respondent
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
