Bsr Infratech INDIA Limited vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the respondent police should not interfere with the petitioner's office or employees without following due process of law. The Court directed the respondent police to adhere to the due process of law in their investigation. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submissions regarding the alleged arbitrary interference and threats. The ratio decidendi is that law enforcement agencies must act within the bounds of law and follow established procedures when dealing with businesses and their premises, especially when investigating matters like GST affairs. The operative direction was that the respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s office or the employees without following due process of law, and the respondent police are directed to follow due process of law while investigating the matter. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both counsel.

Facts

The petitioner, BSR Infratech India Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the actions of the respondents, including police officers from the 3rd and 4th respondent police stations. The petitioner alleged that on February 29, 2024, police officers visited their regional office in Vijayawada, interfered with the staff, and threatened to seal the premises and take away available employees. The petitioner contended that their directors and employees are not involved in any unlawful activity and that the police did not disclose any valid reason for their actions. The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader for Home, stated that the police were investigating a complaint related to GST affairs and had searched the petitioner's premises.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondent police in interfering with the petitioner's office and threatening to seal the premises without following due process of law is illegal and arbitrary, as contended by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that their directors and employees have not committed any unlawful activity. They contended that the police's actions on February 29, 2024, including interference with staff and threats to seal the premises, were illegal and arbitrary, as no valid reason was disclosed. They relied on the principle that authorities must follow due process of law. Revenue/State's Arguments: The Government Pleader for Home submitted that the respondent police were investigating a complaint related to GST affairs and had searched the petitioner's premises in connection with this investigation.