Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri. P. Tirupathi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 March, 2021
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Writ Petition No.5283 of 2021
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent-Gram Panchayat.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondents have illegally and unauthorisedly put a seal to the PTH Prawns processing plant belonging to the petitioner without issuing any notice. Therefore, the Writ Petition is filed by him seeking declaration that the said action on the part of the respondents in putting the seal to the premises of the petitioner without issuing any notice is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently, sought a direction to the 3rd respondent to break open the seal.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent Gram Panchayat, on instructions, would submit that notice was in fact served on the petitioner on 24.02.2021 itself and the petitioner did not give any explanation to the same and as such, they have proceeded further putting up seal to the PTH Prawns processing plant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such notice was served on the petitioner. So, it requires evidence to resolve the said disputed question of fact. 2
5. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the Writ Petition can be disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to serve fresh notice on the petitioner and seek explanation from him and it would meet the ends of justice.
6. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to serve fresh notice on the petitioner within three days from the date of this order and the petitioner is directed to offer his explanation to the said notice within three days from the date of service of the said notice on him. Thereafter, on receipt of the said explanation, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders to that effect within one week from the date of receipt of the said explanation. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent is directed to break open the seal that was put to the business premises of the petitioner i.e., PTH Prawns processing plant till appropriate orders are passed after the explanation that was submitted by the petitioner was considered. No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:24.03.2021.
cs