Sri Satya Hydraulic Fal G Bricks vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court directed the respondents to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner on July 29, 2021, and take appropriate action. Until such time, the respondents were explicitly ordered not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner concerning the notices dated July 14, 2021, July 16, 2021, and August 7, 2021. The Court did not explicitly rule on the legality or voidness of the notice dated August 7, 2021, but rather disposed of the writ petition by ensuring the petitioner's reply would be considered and coercive action would be withheld pending a decision. The ratio decidendi is that authorities must consider submitted replies before resorting to coercive measures and that the process must be followed diligently, especially when allegations of undue interference are made.

Facts

The petitioner, an individual with a rural background, established a registered Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprise for producing Fly ash lime gypsum (Fal G) bricks. The petitioner obtained statutory permission and a lease for land in East Godavari District. The petitioner also possesses a registered certificate and a GST number. The petitioner alleges that respondents, with political influence, issued repeated notices on July 14, 2021, July 16, 2021, and August 7, 2021, interfering with their business. The petitioner submitted a reply with relevant records on July 29, 2021. The respondents, without passing formal orders, were allegedly attempting to disrupt the petitioner's business operations. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to declare the notice dated August 7, 2021, as illegal and void.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated 07.8.2021 issued by the respondents is illegal, void, oppressive, and contrary to the constitutional mandate, thereby warranting its setting aside? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents, despite receiving a comprehensive reply with all relevant records on July 29, 2021, were attempting to interfere with their business activities without passing any formal orders. The repeated notices were seen as an oppressive measure, particularly given the alleged political influence behind them. The petitioner sought to strike down the notice dated August 7, 2021, as unconstitutional and illegal. Respondents' Contention: The learned standing counsel for the respondents submitted that the authorities would pass appropriate orders after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. No specific arguments were made challenging the petitioner's claims regarding the illegality or oppressiveness of the notice, but rather an assurance of due process was given.