Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 707 (AP)

Medarametla Jeevan Sai v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-10-28

BATTU DEVANAND

body2021
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for 1st respondent and Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused the record. 2. With the consent of respective counsel, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage admission. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the family of the petitioner established a mineral water plant in the name and style “Amma Water Suppliers” in Venkannapalem Village, Manubolu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, in clean environment with RO technology by obtaining certificate of registration called ‘AIIMS CERTIFICATION”, dated 07.08.2020, which is valid for a period of three weeks. The petitioner has been distributing the water at free of cost to some of the down trodden people, who cannot afford and to the general public at Rs.3/-. There are about 40 mineral water plants in Manubolu Mandal. As such, the petitioner is not getting much profit from the water plant. 4. On 09.09.2021 the 4th respondent issued a notice to the petitioner to close down the water plant alleging that without permissions the petitioner is running the water plant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made application for permission on 16.09.2021. 5. On the other hand, Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, submits that without obtaining necessary permission, the petitioner is not entitled to operate the water plant, which is against to the public interest. Due to this reason only, the respondents issued notice, dated 09.09.2021 to the petitioner to close down the water plant. 6. The learned Standing Counsel submits that in the affidavit it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner sent an application by post, dated 16.09.2021, seeking permission to establish water plant and if it reaches 4th respondent, it will be considered as per relevant rules. 7. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel, in the considered opinion of the Court, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition can be disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application, dated 16.09.2021 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the relevant laws and rules. 8. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the application dated 16.09.2021 of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.