Telangana High Court
WP/39616/2014 of M/s Mahalakshmi Jaggery AND General Merchants, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep..by its on 30 December 2014
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEITH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.39616 of 2014 BETWEEN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTEITH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.39616 of 2014
BETWEEN
M/s.Mahalakshmi Jaggery & General Merchants.
AND
... PETITIONER
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, and others.
...RESPONDENTS
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner herein alleges that he carries on business in the name andstyle of M/s.Mahalakshmi Jaggery & General Merchants at Visakhapatnam.He also states that all his stocks are well accounted for and covered by validbills and all the transactions relating thereto were also properly recorded.However, he seeks a direction against respondent Nos.2 to 6, who aredifferent SHOs of different police stations in Krishna District that they shallnot interfere with his business.
3. Learned Government Pleader submits that respondent No.2 alone is concerned with the shop of the petitioner. It is further stated that petitionerwas found involved in two crimes viz., Crime Nos.588/2013-14 and485/2013-14 relating to Black Jaggery. To the extent of the presentgrievance of the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that respondent No.2 isnot interfering with their business activity. However, the merchants within theVisannapet Circle dealing with Black Jaggery are notified and their saleparticulars are called for. Except that, there is no interference with theirbusiness. It is stated that the sale particulars are required for the purpose ofsatisfying that there is no violation of A.P.Excise Act.
4. In view of the specific averment that there is no interference with thebusiness of the petitioner and merely a notice to the petitioner was givenalong with others to submit sale particulars, in my view, the present writpetition is filed merely on an apprehension and, as such, respondent No.2 isnot interfering with the business activity of the petitioner and hence, nofurther orders are required to be passed in this petition.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, themiscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be noorder as to costs.
December 30, 2014LMV
_____________________
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J