Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Somu Nagireddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 May, 2022
Author: D Ramesh
Bench: D Ramesh
OS
Se s
oe
ww
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATE ~
MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
"PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
IA No. 2 OF 2082
iN
WP NO: T3897 OF 2022
Between.
Samu Nagireddy, S/o. Peda Chowda Raddy, Aged 37 years, Occ. Business, Rio.
DUNO S-26-3/ 13/2, Thokada Vilags, Ward No.7 1, Visakhapatnam.
~
oe
Petitioner
AND
JU The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by ifs Principal Secretary, Municipal
" Administration, Secretariat, Velagan: ull, Amaray ati, Guriur District.
Greater Visakhanainam Municipal Corporation, Rep by iis Corrunissioner,
Visakhapainam. eg
. Agsistant Engineer (Operation), Andhra Fradesh Eastern Power Distribulian
° Gampany Lid Visakhapatnam, ne
4 Thokada Grama Paryakshaka Samithi, Rep.by iis President, Thokada,
" Gajuwaks, Visakhapatnam.
a
'fad 4, i
Raspandents
_iecunsal for the Petitioner -SRIV V SATISN
" Sounsel for the Respondent No.{:GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
" Sounsel for the Respondent No.2: SR} 8. LAKSHM NARAYANA REDDY,
STANDING COUNSEL
Counsel for the Raspandent No.3: SRI METTA CHANDRA SEKHAR, STANDING
COUNSEL
Patition under Saction 157 CRO praying that in the clrournstances stated in the
affidawt fled in support of the writ pelition.dhe High Court may be pleased to suspend
the Notice No.214 4/801 S/ACP-V-db-05, 2028 issued by the 2 respondent by permifing
the petitioner to cun his workshap, pending disposal af WP No. 13897 of 2022, on the fils
of fhe High Court, ARDS
The court while directing issue of notice fo the Respondents herein to show
cause as to why this application should not be complied with, made the following
oderniThe receint of iis arder wil be deemed. fo be the receipt af notice in the case}.
Fhe Gaunt made the following:
ORDER:
"Tre main contention of the learned counsel for the petiioner/s is that the
-p6titioners in all these writ petitions established smal scale unit of work shops In Sy.No.SOM and 50/2 of Thokada Village, Division No.71, Gajuwaka, Visakhaphatnam:
Subsequently, based an the complaint mace by the 4° respondent herein, the 2° respondent has initiated proceedings | and issued notice to the some of the petitioners In the year 2046. Said notices were assailed before this Court In diferent writ petitions. | ~ oe Said writ petitions are disposed of through connmnon order dated 20.12.2018, at the admission stage, with a direction to the petitioners to treat the notices, ax issued under Section 443 of the GHMC Act, and given one week time to aubmll explanation, ti such me, 2 respondent was directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioners. :
-- While things stood thus, the petitioners have farmed info an Association and fled a sult for permanent infunction on 'the fide of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Galwaka and Sasing aon the material, the court hae rejected the claim of the netiioner, As against which the PetitionerAasociation has Aled CMA Nod of 2048, om the file of XH! Additional [Natrict Judge; Galuweaka, Visakhapatnam, which was spaced of on 68.04 2019, in view of the common order in the writ petitions, giving Hberty to the members of the petitioners association to submit an explanation within ane (01) week and H the cetiianaris have not Med explanations in the prescribed dime, the 2 respondent herein is at A herty to iake appropriate action aa per rules Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the said orders were srecSived by the petitionerfs on 20.04.2019 and accerdingly they have submitted explanations on 27.04.2018 to the 2°° respondent, the 2° respondent aiso acknowledged the same. :
ad Surprisingly, the 2°° respondent has also passed orders on 27.04.2019 on merif on the niaterial available and stating that no explanations have been recelyed fram the members ofthe Association. 44.
Though the orders were passed by the 2" respondent on 27.04.2018 but the _- S48 Was notimplementied by the authorities in true spirit, Jef with ne option, the ge respondent herein approached this court by way of Writ Petition No2o1 of 2020, with a prayer fo implement the orders of the 2°" respondent dated 20.01.2017 and 27.04.2019, However, basad on the submissions made by the standing counsel, te matter has been disposed of, with a direction the 2" respondent therein, fo cause effect the orders passed on 27.04.2012 mmediately after relaxation of the COVID guidelines ar Hing up the lock dawn, _~ Gansidering the said observations, ofthis Court, after fing up the tock dawn ty the Government concerned, the N respondent has issued notice dated 33.03.2022. Assasiling the same, presant writ petitions are fled, _ Though the above facts ware not disput tad by the ve petioneris and respondanis, " submitted that by virtue of the Impug nett orders, the authorities have conducted Fanchanaina and scized the Petitioners' work shop Unite on 04.04.2028. He further submitted that all of the units were es fatlished in ine residential area and they are running without obteining any permiasion from the APNC, which is the concerned authority. . a La@arned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the respandenis,
--without following the directions iesued..Oy the competent Civil Court Le., Xin AddRional District Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam Metrict, passed an order an 2? U4 2018: immediately the petitioners have submitted thelr replylagplication for rectification or clarHication on 03.08. e038, Shough the respondents have received ihe Same, ASl passed any orcdars on ithe Sale. aopication for clariication/rectification made By the petiianers on 03.08. 2013, hal siraight away issued the present impugned notices.
Coal we et we Considering the submissions mace by learned counsal on Roth Sides, taking that the pleadings are completed, but the fact remains that in all the petiioner!s' UnitsAvork shops, there are more than 500 ammoyees are working, by virtue of the presant impugned action of the respondents, all the employees were on roaris, Hane'. to consider the writ petitions far final disposal, this court inclined to post the matters frimediately after Suanmer Vacation, he, on 22.06. 2028.
FH then, there shall be a direction fo the 2" respondent to permit the petitioner's to run the Sublet work shops.
ae Pee S ee aw a eea nee ae ae ea eee se eee e cape eer cepa eee aeeaseeauerqenternsaetetes Corvegegene SD A.VIJAYA BABU ASSIST ANT SROISTRAR #TRUE COPYH . For _ SECTION oF "PICER To, a sete etetetieseteaity jitsu esaguatenninnnt
1. The Principal Secretary, Municinal Adm! ristratien, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaraveli, Guntur Distr! ot x. The Cammissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, ES .
3. Assistant Engineer (Operation), Andi Gampany Ltd Visakhapatnam.
a Pradesh astern Power Distribution
4. The President, Thokada Grama Pari 'ksh aka Samithi, Thokada, Galuawaka, _ Visakhapatnann, {1 to 4 By READ) S$. One CO to Sri ¥ ¥ Satish, Advacats' foPUC) 8 One CC to Sri S. Lakshmi! | Narayana Reddy, Standing Counsel [OPUC] # One CC to Sd Matia Chandra Sekhar, Standing Counsel fORUC]
8. Two CCs to GF for Municipal Administration, 4 igh Court of AP [OUT] @ One spare copy. 7 MSB HIGH COURT DRS DATeD:02/08/2022 ORDER POST THE MATTERS IMMEDIATELY AFTER SUMMER VACATION i.8., ON 2.08, 20282 iA NOS OF 2022 iN WP.No. T3804 af 2022 INTERIM DIRECTION