Emkay Venkatesh v. The State Of Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * WRIT PETITION No. 31205 of 2015 BETWEEN E.Venkatesh .. PETITIONER AND The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary and others ...RESPONDENTS Date of Order pronounced: 28.09.2015 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether his Lordship wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the Judgment?

ORDER:- Heard.

2. Petitioner states that he is a licensed stamp vendor and has also a licence for running of the franking machine and the same is valid till 31.12.2015. It is alleged that an FIR No.174 of 2015 was lodged against him on 11.07.2015 which is pending before the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad on false allegations against him. However, for the present, petitioner seeks permission to vend the non-judicial stamps, which are available with him through franking machine. He made two requests before the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps as well as before the District Registrar, Hyderabad on 27.08.2015 and 18.09.2015 giving details of non-judicial stamps, which he is holding, and requesting permission to carry on his licensed business. Alleging inaction on the said representations, this writ petition is filed.

3. It is apparent, prima facie, that petitioner's licence is not suspended and though a criminal case is pending against him, the fact remains that petitioner's licence is in force and his lawful trade can be carried on by the petitioner provided he conforms himself with the conditions of the licence and follows the law. The request of the petitioner though pending before the Commissioner and the District Registrar, no orders seem to have been passed so far. Hence, it is appropriate to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to examine petitioner's request and consider the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are free to impose appropriate conditions on the petitioner if they deem it appropriate to permit him to carry on the said licenced work.

With the above direction, 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 September 28, 2015 LMV