Bandimekala Balaramudu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
WP/6955/2026 · 2026-03-29
Ravi Cheemalapati
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19002 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19002 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010129422026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 6955/2026 Between:
1. Bandimekala Balaramudu,, S/O Obulesu, Aged About 56 Years, Occ Proprietor Of Lakshmi Venkateswara
Traders (GSTIN:37BNSPB6048R3Z2) (Rice Mill), R/O 12-154, Ambedkar Colony, Yadiki Village And Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. ...PETITIONER AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Pri. Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur district.522237
2. The District Collector Cum District Magistrate, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District.515001
3. The Civil Supplies Dy Tahsildar, Yadki Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. 515408
4. The Station House Officer, Yadiki Police Station, Ananthapuramu District.
515408
...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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in seizing the rice mill belonging to Lakshmi Venkateswara Traders (GSTIN 37BNSPB6048R3Z2), situated at Yadiki Village and Mandal, Ananthapuram District, vide proceedings in
2
Rc.No.K6/264/2025, in connection with Crime No. 134 of 2025 on the file of Yadiki Police Station, Ananthapuram District, dated 13-08-2025, the said action of the respondents in seizing and continuing to retain the rice mill is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner has been deprived of his property without following the due process of law, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to release the seized rice mill of Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill, situated at Yadiki Village and Mandal, Ananthapuram District, which was seized vide Rc.No.K6/264/2025 in connection with Crime No. 134 of 2025 on the file of Yadiki Police Station, Ananthapuram District dated 13-08-2025, to the petitioner, and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to release the seized rice mill of Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill, situated at Yadiki Village and Mandal, Ananthapuram District, which was seized vide Rc.No.K6/264/2025 in connection with Crime No. 134 of 2025 on the file of Yadiki Police Station, Ananthapuram District dated 13-08- 2025, to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order:
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in seizing the rice mill belonging to the Lakshmi Venkateswara Traders situated at Yadiki Village and mandal, Ananthapuram district vide proceedings Rc.No.K6/264/2025 in connection with Crime No.134 of 2025 dated 13.08.2025. 3
2. Heard Sri Sravana Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while submitting a copy of the memo across the bench, submitted that, the petitioner has now restricted his relief to dispose of the representation made by him to the authorities and accordingly, prayed to dispose of the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the authorities would definitely pass orders on the petitioner’s representation, if any made, in accordance with law. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. Since, the relief sought by the petitioner is innocuous being only for disposal of a representation; this court is inclined to pass the following order:
“The authority concerned shall pass orders on the representation/objections made by the petitioner in accordance with law within six(06) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If no representation/objections is made by the petitioner, the same shall be obtained from the writ record and shall pass orders on the same”
4
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
BRS