Telangana High Court
WP/39688/2014 of M/s Bhqgavan Kirana Jaggery and General Merchant, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, 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.39688 of 2014 BETWEEN M/s.Bhagavan
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.39688 of 2014
BETWEEN
M/s.Bhagavan Kirana Jaggery and General Merchants, rep. by its Prop.
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.
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner herein alleges that he carries on business in the name andstyle of M/s.Bhagavan Kirana Jaggery and General Merchants, atKhammam Road, Chivemla Village and Mandal, Nalgonda. He also statesthat all his stocks are well accounted for and covered by valid bills and all thetransactions relating thereto were also properly recorded. However, heseeks a direction against respondent Nos.2 to 6, who are different SHOs ofdifferent police stations in Nalgonda District that they shall not interfere withhis business.
3. Learned Government pleader, on instructions from respondent No.4,who is the only concerned respondent so far as petitioner’s shop is concerned, that neither any frequent joint raids is conducted at businessplace nor any case was registered. It is specifically stated that on20.12.2014, no person from respondent No.4 police station went to thelicenced premises and never threatened the petitioner 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.4 is not interfering with the business of the petitioner, same is recordedand no further orders are required to be passed.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, themiscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be noorder as to costs.
_____________________
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J