IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.13425 of 2011 BETWEEN Katragadda Satyam Foundation.
... PETITIONER AND The Mandal Tahsildar, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District.
...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner questions the impugned notice dated 05.03.2011 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner is doing business in packaged drinking water manufacturing without requisite permission from the Government and without ISI standards, which is violative of the packaged drinking water manufacturing rules.
3. Petitioner denies doing any such business, as alleged and claims that it has established a system for purifying water and making it available to the general public on nominal charge of Rs.3/- per 20 liters towards processing charges. It is also stated that they are not supplying water in any packaged container. Petitioner states that it had already filed an explanation to the said notice on 12.03.2011 and on 17.03.2011, the respondent had seized the water purifying system and restrained the petitioner from supplying water from the said purifying system.
4. On 30.04.2011, while issuing notice before admission, this Court directed the Tahsildar, respondent herein, to permit the petitioner to carry on supply of purified water of 20 liters cans to the residents subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not market its product in bottles or packets of less than 20 liters size.
5. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondent.
6. Evidently, since the writ petition is directed against the notice issued and neither the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar is questioned nor any malafides are alleged against him, in my view, the interest of justice would be appropriately served, if the respondent/Tahsildar is directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner, Ex.P2, dated 12.03.2011, by taking into account all the attending facts and circumstances and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass final orders in pursuance of the impugned notice.
The respondent/Tahsildar shall, therefore, act accordingly within a period of eight (8) weeks from today and in the meanwhile, the interim direction granted by this Court on 30.04.2011 shall continue to operate and shall be subject to the final orders that would be passed by the Tahsildar, as directed above.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 12, 2014 DSK