IN THE HIGH 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.39616 of 2014 BETWEEN M/s.Mahalakshmi Jaggery & General Merchants.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner herein alleges that he carries on business in the name and style of M/s.Mahalakshmi Jaggery & General Merchants at Visakhapatnam. He also states that all his stocks are well accounted for and covered by valid bills and all the transactions relating thereto were also properly recorded. However, he seeks a direction against respondent Nos.2 to 6, who are different SHOs of different police stations in Krishna District that they shall not interfere with his business.
3. Learned Government Pleader submits that respondent No.2 alone is concerned with the shop of the petitioner. It is further stated that petitioner was found involved in two crimes viz., Crime Nos.588/2013-14 and 485/2013-14 relating to Black Jaggery. To the extent of the present grievance of the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that respondent No.2 is not interfering with their business activity. However, the merchants within the Visannapet Circle dealing with Black Jaggery are notified and their sale particulars are called for. Except that, there is no interference with their business. It is stated that the sale particulars are required for the purpose of satisfying that there is no violation of A.P.Excise Act.
4. In view of the specific averment that there is no interference with the business of the petitioner and merely a notice to the petitioner was given along with others to submit sale particulars, in my view, the present writ petition is filed merely on an apprehension and, as such, respondent No.2 is not interfering with the business activity of the petitioner and hence, no further orders are required to be passed in this petition.
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 December 30, 2014 LMV