WP/22869/2025 of Smt.Pulagam Sailaja, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 1 March 2026

1. SMT.PULAGAM SAILAJA,, W/O JAYARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O PLOT NO.21(P), DOWLESWARAM, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P.I.I.C TOWER, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

3. THE ZONAL MANAGER, A.P.I.I.C LTD, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

4. THE ZONAL MANAGER AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER, A.P.I.I.C L.TD, I.A.L.A DOWLESWARAM, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. T V JAGGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. SANTHI CHANDRA SC For APIIC

2. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE

The Court made the following ORDER:

The grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ petition is that the respondents are not granting permission/plan approval for establishing a folding iron cots industry in Plot Nos.7, 9 part & 11 in R.S.No.326 of Dowleswaram Village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, and that the same is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.36 Industries and Commerce (IP) Dept., dated 29.04.2015, G.O.Ms.No.68 Industries and Commerce (IP) Department, dated 26.10.2024 and violative of Article 14, 19(g) of Constitution of India, therefore, seeking for consequential directions to the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the order dated 03.02.2016 passed in W.P.No.32385 of 2015, sought to advance detailed arguments. However, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that though the counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, points out that the representations made by the petitioner on the subject are lacking in material particulars and clarity.

This Court before considering the case of the respective parties has gone through the material filed along with the Writ Petition. The representations made by the petitioner on different dates are not comprehensive and it appears that due to the same the respondent- Corporation did not examine / consider the same in the right manner.

Therefore, instead of going into the merits or other wise of the writ petition, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition granting liberty to the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation to the 3rd respondent by enclosing relevant material with regard to the permission for establishing a folding iron cots industry in subject matter plots. On receipt of the said representation, the 3rd respondent shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. The decision taken on the representation, as indicated above, shall be intimated to the petitioner under proper acknowledgment.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date:02.03.2026.

Note: Issue CC in three (03) days. B/o Ssv

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT PETITION NO: 22869 OF 2025

Date:02.03.2026 Ssv