Telangana High Court
WP/28239/2009 of T.K. Jelan Basha, Vs Municipality Yemmigannur, on 29 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THIS THE 29th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 W.P.No.28239 of 2009 Between: T.K.Jelan Basha and others ... PETITIONER(S) and Municipality Yemmigannur rep by its Commissioner office at Yemmigannur Mandal, Kurnool District, A.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THIS THE 29[th] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009
W.P.No.28239 of 2009
Between:
T.K.Jelan Basha and others
and
... PETITIONER(S)
Municipality Yemmigannur rep by its Commissioner office atYemmigannur Mandal, Kurnool District, A.P.
…RESPONDENT(S)
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYW.P.No.28239 of 2009
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:
Petitioners are the joint owners of decorticator unit establishedway back in the year 1984 in Yemmiganur Mandal of Kurnool District. It is stated that the licensing authority of Agricultural Department hasissued the necessary licence to run the unit and the unit is being runstrictly in accordance with the law. The grievance of the petitioner isthat the respondent-Municipality is insisting on closure of the unitwithout issuing any notice.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedStanding Counsel for Kurnool Municipal Corporation.
Even if the decorticator unit being run by the petitioners is withinthe limits of the respondent-Municipality, the functioning thereof cannotbe stopped without issuing any notice or initiating any proceedings.
Various provisions of law govern the functioning of the unit and as longas permissions and licences are obtained, it cannot be prevented fromfunctioning. In case the respondent finds that the unit cannot bepermitted to function for any reasons referable to the relevantprovisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, notice isrequired to be issued and further action can be taken only onconsidering the explanation that may be submitted by the petitioners.
The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing therespondent not to interfere with the functioning of the decorticating unitbeing run by the petitioners without issuing any notice under therelevant provisions of law. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
29[th] December 2009CVRK