Allowed

Sanju , Sanjay Ladda v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC16 Mar 2017WP/6660/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A high court order in a writ petition where the petitioner alleged harassment by authorities supplying jaggery for illegal liquor manufacture despite having a valid license. The court directed authorities not to interfere with lawful business without material, requiring a notice before action, while retaining powers for search and seizure based on departmental material.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities not to interfere with lawful business without material; mandatory notice required before action; exception retained for search and seizure based on departmental mat

Sanju , Sanjay Ladda Vs The State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6660 OF 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue an order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in harassing by interfering with the business of the petitioner in white jaggery, colour jaggery and alam under valid licence and bills and not allowing the petitioner to carry on business in white jaggery, colour jaggery and alam and visiting the shop and the godown everyday, as illegal and arbitrary and without any authority of Law and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere or in any manner seize the stocks and the vehicles while transporting the white jaggery, colour and alam.”

¶6

The petitioner claims that he is a dealer in food grains including the white jaggery and registered with the appellate authority under the Act. It is his case that the respondent authorities are frequently visiting his business premises and harassing him merely on suspicion that he is supplying jaggery for the purpose of manufacture of illegal liquor. He further asserts that the respondent authorities, without issuing any notice, are frequently visiting the petitioner’s premises and causing great inconvenience to him in doing business. In those circumstances, the petitioner seeks protection of his fundamental right to do business, in accordance with law, by invoking Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

¶7

¶8

The Writ Petition came up for admission on 27.02.2017 and thereafter, it was adjourned to 14.03.2017. Today, when the matter is listed, learned Government Pleader, on instructions, specifically submits that the allegations made by the petitioner are not true and as a matter of fact none of the officers has visited the petitioner’s premises.

¶9

Having considered the respective submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities not to interfere with the lawful business carried on by the petitioner, without there being any material, and if at all there is any violation on the part of the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall mandatorily issue notice before proceeding to take any action. However, this order will not preclude the authorities in exercising the powers of search and seizure in the event there is a material with the department with respect to any unlawful activity suspecting to be carried out by the petitioner.

¶10

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition

¶11

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

_____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶13

MARCH 16, 2017 YVL

¶14

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶16

WRIT PETITION No.6660 OF 2017

¶17

Date: 16.03.2017

¶18

YVL

Sanju , Sanjay Ladda v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju , Sanjay Ladda 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chimata venu Gopal Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Pula Mabu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Its Principal

K. Keshava Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Suggala Sai Kumari Vs Sri Gandham Chandrudu

Rupanagudi Sujith Kumar Reddy, Vs The Nandyal Municipality

Maniklal Agarwal Vs The State of Telangana, Rep., .by its Secretary