Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 50301 (AP)

B VEERANJANEYULU v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/41107/2022 · 2025-11-18

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010695882022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 41107/2022 Between: 1. B VEERANJANEYULU, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 40 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO.303, SAI KRISHNA TOWERS, PANTAKALUVA ROAD, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA-520010. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CENTRAL ZONE, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MACHAVARAM POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA TOWN. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with the carrying on the trade/operation of M/s. Goldeun Oakss Spa and Saloon in the premises bearing Door No.59-6-17, 2nd floor, Chalasani Punnaiah Vajramma Complex, 2nd Line, Gayatri Nagar, Beside Metropolitan Hotel, Vijayawada by the petitioner as per the terms of the license, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law and violative of Articles 14, 21, 300A and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere with the carrying on the trade/operation of M/s. Goldeun Oakss Spa and Saloon in the premises bearing Door No.59-6-17, 2nd floor, Chalasani Punnaiah Vajramma Complex, 2nd Line, Gayatri Nagar, Beside Metropolitan Hotel, Vijayawada by the petitioner as per the terms of the license, in the interest of justice, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TENEPALLI NIRANJAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, by the Petitioner for the following relief: <.... to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with the carrying on the trade/operation of M/s. Goldeun Oakss Spa and Saloon in the premises bearing Door No.59-6-17, 2nd floor, Chalasani Punnaiah Vajramma Complex, 2nd Line, Gayatri Nagar, Beside Metropolitan Hotel, Vijayawada by the petitioner as per the terms of the license, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law and violative of Articles 14, 21, 300A and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere with the carrying on the trade/operation of M/s. Goldeun Oakss Spa and Saloon in the premises bearing Door No.59-6-17, 2nd floor, Chalasani Punnaiah Vajramma Complex, 2nd Line, Gayatri Nagar, Beside Metropolitan Hotel, Vijayawada by the petitioner as per the terms of the license, in the interest of justice, and pass ...= At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the respondent Police are interfering in the business affairs of the Petitioner. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for home, on instructions, would submit that respondent Police are not interfering in the civil disputes of the petitioner and necessary orders may be passed by disposing of this Writ Petition. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 41107 of 2022 19.11.2025 Mjl /*