IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 37106 of 2014 BETWEEN P.Venkateswarlu and others AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Four traders have joined together and filed the present writ petition complaining that respondent Nos.3 to 9 are harassing them and interfering with their business of Black Jaggery and Alum, which they are carrying on under valid licence and all the goods in their shops are well accounted and supported by bills and vouchers. Petitioners allege that on 08.11.2014 and 25.11.2014 the officers viz., respondent Nos.3 to 9 visited the petitioners’ premises and threatened them to close down the premises. Hence, alleging unlawful interference, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions from the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Suryapet, respondent No.3, wherein he states that the respondents have neither conducted any frequent raids, as alleged, nor any case is lodged against the petitioners. The allegation of the petitioners that on 08.11.2014 the respondents have conducted joint raids, is denied and that no case is lodged against the petitioners and in fact, the respondents never visited the petitioners’ shop.
4. Apparently, the present writ petition is filed seeking an anticipatory order to insulate the petitioners’ shop from any action by respondent Nos.3 to 9. Moreover, this court also does not approve the filing of the common writ petition by four different persons and if such common writ petition is filed in future, the Registry shall insist each trader to file a separate writ petition. It is also evident from the instructions noted above that there was neither any interference nor raid conducted, as alleged by the petitioners, by any of respondent Nos.3 to 9. It is, therefore, evident that petitioners have filed the writ petition as a preventive measure based on mere apprehension and, as such, liberty is given to respondent Nos.3 to 9 to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, if and when any violation of law is, prima facie, noticed against the petitioners. However, till then, respondent Nos.3 to 9 shall not interfere with the petitioners’ existing business.
With the above liberty, writ petition is 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 12, 2014 LMV