Telangana High Court
WP/40086/2014 of M/s Navya Traders, Vs The State of Telangana, 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 Nos.40086, 40089 and 40109 of 2014
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 Nos.40086, 40089 and 40109 of 2014
BETWEEN
M/s.Navya Traders and others
AND
... PETITIONER
The State of Telangana, 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.
COMMON ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioners herein are traders who are dealing with Black Jaggery andother kirana items. It is stated that all their stocks are well accounted for andare covered by valid bills and all the transactions relating thereto were alsoproperly recorded. However, they seeks a direction against respondents notto interfere with their business.
3. Learned Government pleader, on instructions from respondent No.3,who is the only concerned respondent so far as petitioners’ shops isconcerned, that neither any frequent joint raids is conducted at businessplaces of the petitioners nor any case was registered. It is specifically statedthat on 20.12.2014, no person from respondent No.3 police station went to the licenced premises and never threatened the petitioners to close down thepremises.
4. Obviously, the present writ petition is filed merely on an apprehensionor to secure an order in anticipation of any action taken. Since respondentNo.3 is not interfering with the business of the petitioners, same is recordedand no further orders are required to be passed.
Writ petitions are, 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