M/S. Msr Firewood, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH **** WRIT PETITION NO.35696 OF 2015 DATED 06th NOVEMBER, 2015 Between:

M/s.MSR Firewood, rep. by its Partner Smt.T.Shanthi Kumar, And others. .. Petitioners and State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary (Home Department) A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others .. Respondents

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.35696 OF 2015

O R D E R

The grievance of the petitioners was that the police authorities were interfering with the business of the first petitioner firm and not allowing one of its partners, the second petitioner, and the other petitioners who are her brothers, to run the business.

The Station House Officer, Jaladanki Police Station, SPSR, Nellore District, furnished written instructions dated 04.11.2015 to the office of the learned Government Pleader for Home stating that a complaint had been lodged by one Ch.Vijaya Bhaskar, who was the owner of SLN Crackers, that all the crackers in his godown were destroyed owing to a fire accident. This complaint arrayed, amongst others, the husband of the second petitioner herein as an accused on the ground that there were inter se disputes between them. Basing on this complaint, Crime No.84 of 2015 was stated to have been registered under Section 436 IPC on the file of Jaladanki Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. The accused in the said crime were stated to be absconding. The SHO concluded by stating that the police authorities would obey the directions passed by this Court in the present writ petition.

In the light of the aforestated facts, police interference in the business of the first petitioner firm is not warranted if such business was licensed in accordance with law. There is no indication that the second petitioner is operating the business of the first petitioner firm in violation of any procedural norms. The license issued stands in the name of the petitioner firm and the second petitioner is shown to be a member of such firm under the deed of partnership dated 21.01.2013. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the police authorities not to interfere with the business of the first petitioner firm except in accordance with law, if warranted. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs. ______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 06th OCTOBER, 2015 PGS