ORDER : N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “...declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in issuing Search Proceedings dated 26.08.2025 in File No.C.No.80/Memo/SDPO-M/2025 and also consequential acts of Search and Seizure Panchanama dated 28.08.2025 conducted by Respondent No.4 as illegal, arbitrary in violation of Section 103 read with Sections 96 and 97 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (b) To quash/set aside the Search Proceedings dated 26.08.2025 in File No.C.No.80/Memo/SDPO-M/2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary (c) To quash/set aside the Search and Seizure Panchanama dated 28.08.2025 conducted by Respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary (d) Consequently direct the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 not to interfere or cause obstructions in the business activities of the 2 nd Petitioner in the spinning mill located in land admeasuring Ac.9-00 Guntas in Survey No.601/4, 601/5, 601/6 and 614/1 situated at Peddavoora Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District Telangana-508266 except otherwise in accordance with law…” 2. Heard Mr.V.Hariharan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Srikanth Hariharan and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at admission stage. Notice to respondent No.6 is hereby dispensed with. 3. The facts of the case in brief as stated are that petitioner No.1 being represented by its Director is in the business of Yarn Manufacturing and established over the land admeasuring 43,560 sq.yds., along with ACC structures to an extent of 90000 sq.ft., at Peddavoora Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District and constructed amenities and installed heavy machinery for the business. Petitioner No.1, after a considerable period of time was unable to carry out business and intended to lease out entire business along with machinery and accordingly petitioner Nos.1 and 2 entered into a registered lease deed vide Doc.No.214/2023 dated 20.01.2023 on certain terms and conditions. As per the terms of agreement, the schedule lands were leased to petitioner No.2. Thereafter, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 entered into registered sub-lease deed vide Doc.No.240/2023 dated 20.01.2023 with one M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises Private Limited, having its registered office at Raigarh, Maharashtra. By virtue of said sub-lease, M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises had taken up entire premises along with amenities and machinery for a period of 9 years having commenced from 01.01.2023. 4. Thereafter, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 entered into registered sub-lease deed vide Doc.No.240/2023 dated 20.01.2023 with one M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises Private Limited, having its registered office at Raigarh, Maharashtra. By virtue of said sub-lease, M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises had taken up entire premises along with amenities and machinery for a period of 9 years having commenced from 01.01.2023. 4. Thereafter, the said M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises defaulted in payment of rents and expressed inability to continue the sub-lease for running the business in the sub- leased premises. Subsequently, petitioner No.2 and the said M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises converted sub-lease into Job Work Agreement and executed agreement dated 14.05.2025, as such the sub-lease dated 20.01.2023 stood cancelled. The conversion job work agreement came into force from 01.05.2025. As per the said conversion agreement, M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises handed over the premises to petitioner No.2 including amenities and machinery along with stock of raw material and finished products which are recorded in the books. Under conversion agreement, the operational responsibilities of petitioner No.2 was to manage all mill operations, labour, machinery maintenance etc., while the responsibility of M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises was to supply the raw material and collection of yarn and waste cotton. 5. It is further submitted that M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises breached the terms of the Job Work Agreement by not supplying the raw material, due to which the business operations at the unit were completely disrupted and petitioner No.2 was not in a position to give required output products on month-to-month basis. Since, M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises was not able to supply raw material, it came forward to depute some third party vendor viz., M/s.Tirumala Traders for supply of raw cotton material to petitioner No.2 without there being any consent from petitioner No.2. However, petitioner No.2 did not receive any raw material and therefore, made an alternative arrangement for supply of raw cotton to ensure the business operations are intact. It is further submitted that there is no privity of contract between petitioner No.2 and M/s.Tirumala Traders. As such disputes arose between petitioner No.2 and M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises. Thereafter, the representatives of M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises and their henchmen started interfering and disrupting with the operations of petitioner No.2 and also obstructed supply of raw material from third party. 6. It is further submitted that on 16.08.2025, M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises through respondent No.6 who is the Managing Partner of M/s.Tirumala Traders lodged a complaint before Police, Peddavora, Nalgonda District against petitioner No.1 and its Directors. 6. It is further submitted that on 16.08.2025, M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises through respondent No.6 who is the Managing Partner of M/s.Tirumala Traders lodged a complaint before Police, Peddavora, Nalgonda District against petitioner No.1 and its Directors. The Directors of petitioner No.1 approached respondent No.5 Police and narrated the entire facts and also stated that the issue between them is purely a civil dispute, accordingly, respondent No.5 acceded to the said fact and advised respondent No.6 to approach competent civil Court. However, the representatives and henchmen of M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises interfered with the business operations of the petitioners. On 23.08.2025, petitioner No.2 filed a petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in COP.No.129/2025 on the file of Addl. Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Dispute at Hyderabad seeking to restrain M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises and its henchmen from disrupting in receiving bales by petitioner No.2 from third parties and running its spinning millwithout any interruption. The said Court granted interim order on 23.08.2025 wherein M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises were restrained from disrupting in receiving the bales by petitioner No.2 from third parties till 15.09.2025. 7. It is submitted that on 28.08.2025, respondent No.4 along with respondent No.5 had entered into the premises of spinning mill operated by petitioner No.2 and conducted search and seized the stock and also stopped the business operations of the spinning mill and sealed the said premises with locks. Learned senior counsel further submits that no prior notice was given to the petitioners for conducting search and seizure. It is further submitted that respondent No.4 prepared seizure panchanama on 28.08.2025 and submitted that respondent No.3 issued warrant dated 26.08.2025 to conduct search and seizure. Thereafter, on 28.08.2025, it came to the knowledge of petitioners that respondent No.5 had registered a case in Cr.No.189/2025 under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 126(2), 61(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of BNS against petitioner No.1 and its Directors basing on the false complaint given by respondent No.6. Questioning the search proceedings, the present writ petition is filed. 8. Learned senior counsel would submit that respondent No.3 issued proceedings under Section 103 of BNSS directing respondent No.4 to enter into the premises of the petitioner and conduct search proceedings, learned senior counsel would further submit that respondent No.3 has no power to issue notice under Section 103 of BNSS for search. 8. Learned senior counsel would submit that respondent No.3 issued proceedings under Section 103 of BNSS directing respondent No.4 to enter into the premises of the petitioner and conduct search proceedings, learned senior counsel would further submit that respondent No.3 has no power to issue notice under Section 103 of BNSS for search. As contemplated under Section 96 of BNSS , the concerned Court has power to issue notice. Learned senior counsel further submits that in the case on hand, respondent No.3 issued search proceedings without Court order as such notice itself is not in accordance to law. Learned senior counsel further draws attention of this Court to order of Commercial Court in COP.No.129/2025 dated 26.08.2025 whereby the said Court directed respondent authorities not to interfere in the petitioners business. Learned senior counsel further draws attention of this Court to photographs annexed along with writ affidavit wherein it is noted that certain rooms have been locked and sealed. It is further submitted that by issuance of said notice, entire stock which is lying in the factory was seized and is disrupting the operations of the petitioners business. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 has placed a copy of instructions issued by Circle Inspector of Police, Nagarjunsagar Police Station, Nalgonda District stating that respondent No.6 has given a complaint dated 16.08.2025 to respondent No.4 against the petitioner No.1 for the offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, threatening. Based on the said complaint, respondent No.4 registered FIR in Cr.No.189/2025 dated 16.08.2025. The Circle Inspector, Nagarjunasagar, Nalgonda District taken up investigation in the crime, examined the complainant and two eye-witnesses and recorded their statements and collected evidence. On 29.08.2025, the Investigating Officer submitted a petition before the Court of Junior First Class Magistrate, Nidamanoor and has submitted the following seized property before the Court through Form No.60 dated 29.08.2025 vide C.P.No.245/2025: (i) 2002 bags of yarn, each bag weighing approximately45.36 kgs, with a total weight of about 90,810 kgs. (ii) 2140 unbagged yarn cones, each cone weighing approximately 1.89 kgs with a total weight of about 4001.8 Kgs. (iii) Two long registers of M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises Private Limited viz. (a) Cotton bales Inward Register (commenced on 01.04.2025) and (b) Yarn and dust Outward Register. (ii) 2140 unbagged yarn cones, each cone weighing approximately 1.89 kgs with a total weight of about 4001.8 Kgs. (iii) Two long registers of M/s.Bogamallo Enterprises Private Limited viz. (a) Cotton bales Inward Register (commenced on 01.04.2025) and (b) Yarn and dust Outward Register. It is submitted that except seizing the above case property, the Investigating Officer has not seized the Spinning Mill of petitioner No.1 and that some more witnesses have to be examined and evidence has to be collected and the case is under investigation. It is further submitted that except conducting the investigation in the above crime, the Investigating Officer has not interfered with the petitioners business activity. 10. Per contra, learned senior counsel submits that since the entire stock has been seized and locked, the petitioners are not in a position to carry on operations of the business, unless the notice issued under Section 103 of BNSS is set aside, petitioners will not be able to continue their business. 11. After arguing at length, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home admitted that search and seizure proceedings under Section 103 of BNSS is not in accordance to law to the extent of the petitioners business, however, submits that Commercial Court proceedings in COP.No.129/2025 dated23.08.2025 has not been enclosed by the petitioners. 12. Learned senior counsel submits that the entire material including Item Nos.1 and 2 is within the petitioners premises and that only Item No.3 i.e., two long registers of M/s.Bogomallo Enterprises is submitted before the Court through Form No.60 and pray this Court to permit the petitioners to file an application before the concerned Court to shift the undisputed material to another room by segregating with the disputed material. Learned senior counsel would further submit that material seized is subject to natural decay and unless immediate steps are taken, would cause severe loss to the entire stock/material. Learned senior counsel further submits that they would identify another room where the undisputed material can be shifted in the presence of respondent Nos.4 and 5 under proper record. 13. In that view of the matter, the search proceedings dated 26.08.2025 is hereby set aside and that since the matter is pending before the trial Court, the petitioners may file an appropriate application before the trial Court for release of undisputed material. 13. In that view of the matter, the search proceedings dated 26.08.2025 is hereby set aside and that since the matter is pending before the trial Court, the petitioners may file an appropriate application before the trial Court for release of undisputed material. The trial Court shall consider the said application as and when filed by the petitioner and decide the same as expeditiously as possible. The respondent Police are also directed to follow the due procedure as contemplated under law for further investigation. 14. With the above directions and with the consent, this writ petition is disposed of.