Dismissed

M/S.Vasa Rama Narsaiah,Nalgonda Dist,and 4 v. Prohandexcise,Nalgonda Dist,and 3

Telangana HC16 Sept 2020WP/7893/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a government order directing them to stop jaggery business. The court noted that an interim order allowed them to carry on business subject to legal compliance. Deciding no interference occurred, the court dismissed the writ petition as no longer maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The interim order which allowed businesses to carry on operations subject to non-violation of laws.

M/S.Vasa Rama Narsaiah,Nalgonda Dist,and 4 Vs Prohandexcise,Nalgonda Dist,and 3 — Telangana HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 7893 OF 2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

lr//s. Vasa Rama Narsaiah,1-4-1321111, Edga Road, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, Rep. by V.Srisailam, S/o. Rama Narsaiah, Aged 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Suryapet, Nalgonda Distrrct

¶10

Potuganti Venkateshwarlu Kirana & Jaggery Merchants,, H.No.1-2-10212, Edga Road, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, Rep. by Pothuganti Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Jagamaiah, Aged 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Suryapet, Nalgonda District

¶11

Sri Shiva Jyothi Kirana & Commission Agent, H.No.1-4-28911 , Market Road, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, Rep. by B.Santosh Kumar, S/o. Late Prabhakar, Aged 35^years, Occ: Business, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.

¶12

Sri Siri Super l\rlarket, H.No.1-4-13211 12,Edga Road, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, Rep. by Gunda Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Brahmaiah, Aged 40^years, Occ: Business,^{R/o. Suryapet,} Nalgonda District.

¶13

lr/is. Sudheer Kiranam & General lVlerchant,^{H. No.1-2-270l5tu2, Navya Talkies Road,} Suryapet, Nalgonda District, Rep. by^{Perala Sudheer,S/o. Ramalingaiah, Aged about45} yeais, Occ: Business, Fl/o. Suryapet, Nalgonda District.

¶14

..pETt,oNERS

¶15

AND

¶16

The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent,^{Nalgonda, Nalgonda District} -

¶17

1 2 The lnspector of Prohibition^{and Excise, Prohibition and Excise Station, suryapet,} Nalgonda District.

¶18

Tne"Deoutv Suoerintendent of^{Police, Suryapet, Nalgonda District'}

¶19

3 Tne"Deoutv Suoerintendent of^{Police, Suryapet, Nalgonda District'} 4 The Revenue Divisional^{Officer, Suryapet, Nalgonda District}

¶20

4 ...RESpoN'ENTS

¶21

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the}

¶22

circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may be pleased to issue} anappropriatewritororderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureofWritof l,4andamus declaring^{the actionof the respondents in directing the petitioners to stop the} business^{relating to sale,purchase and transportationof jaggery and black iaggeryfrom} l5.03.20l3onthegroundthattheGovernmentoflndiaissuedaNotificationdt.30.0l.20l3 inG.S.R.No.56EauthorizingthemtoCondUctsearchandseizeofjaggeryandblackjaggery underClause4oftheGUR(RegulationofUse)orderlg68aSillegal,arbitrary,withoutany authoritY^{of law}

¶23

WPMP.^{NO:9903 OF 2913 OF 2913 2913}

¶24

WPMP.^{NO:9903 OF 2913 OF 2913 2913} ^-,-^{-.^.,i^^ rhat in rhe circumstancesstated in the} PetltionunderSectionl5lcPCprayingthatinthecircumstanceS! affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleasedto directthe} respondentstoallowthepetitionerstocarryonthebusineSsrelatingtolaggery'black jaggery and alum^{without any interference' pending disposalof the abovewrit petition} Counsel^{for the Petitioners:SRIA' PRABHAKARRAO}

¶25

Counsel^{for Respondent Nos'1 & 2: GP FORPROHIBITION& EXCISE}

¶26

Counsel^{for Respondent No' 3: GP FOR HOME}

¶27

Counsel^{for Respondent No' 4: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶28

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶29

¶30

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO}

¶31

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO.7893of 20L3}

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Writ Petition^{is filed seeking the following relief}

¶34

"....declaring^{the action of the respondents in} directing the^{petitioners to stop the business^} relating to sale,^{purchaseand transportationof} jaggery; and black^jaggery from^{15 03 2013 on the} g.n""i tfr.t the Government^{of lndia issueda} otilication^{dt.3O.O1.2013in} G S R No 56E authorizing them to^{conductsearch and seize of} jaggery and black jaggerl' under Clause^{4 of the} bUn lnegutation of^{Use)Order 1968 as illegal,} arbitrary, $'ithout any authority^{oI lar'v and pass} such other order^{or orders.. "}

¶35

2 At the stage of admission,^{this Court in W.P.M.P.No.9903ol}

¶36

2013, by order dated 27 .06.2OI3,^{passedthe following order:}

¶37

"Even though time lor tiling counter is taken^more than once, no counter-affidavit is filed.

¶38

The respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to carry on business in jaggery, black jaggery and alum, subject, however to their right to interfere $,ith the petitioners' business in the event they were found violating any of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and the Rules made thereunder. "

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned

¶40

Government Pleader submits that in terms of the said interim

¶41

order, there was no interference and petitioners are allowed to

¶42

carry on their business. In view thereof, the cause in the r.r,rit

¶43

petition does not survive.

¶44

Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. pending

¶45

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶46

SD/.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANJREGISTRAR

¶47

//TRUE COpy/ t

¶48

I L-/ SECTION OFFICER

¶49

¶50

One CC to Sri A Prabhakar Rao Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP For Prohibition Excise,High Court for the State to Telangana. [OUT] J. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana (OUT) 4. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana (OUT) 5. Two CD Copies

IVBC

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1610912020

1 H t: 14
/) <br>a <br>2 4 SEP 2U0
\r^ I
.+
.A
* *
D
F.- P,1T c

¶55

ORDER

¶56

WP.No.7893 of 2013

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶58

¶59

WITHOUT COSTS

M/S.Vasa Rama Narsaiah,Nalgonda Dist,and 4 v. Prohandexcise,Nalgonda Dist,and 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Vasa Rama Narsaiah,Nalgonda Dist,and 4 v. Prohandexcise,Nalgonda Dist,and 3

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

St. Regunta Vijaya Lakshmi, Vs The State of Telangana.

Mohammed Obeydullah Khan and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Smt. Dhulipala Padma Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Sri. Podugu Naga Rambabu Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Dwaraka Skyline LLP Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Mirza Taimur Baig (Najam) Vs The State of Telangana