APHC010159932026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 8190/2026 Between: 1. KATPADI SUNIL,, S/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION RUNNING RAMESH ARTS(FLEX PRINTING SHOP), R/O 18-38-S4-939-1, SUNDARAIAH NAGAR, TIRUPATI URBAN TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517501 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP-522503.A 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, TIRUPAHI, AP-517501. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TIRUPATHI EAST POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, AP-517501. 5. SRI K SRINIVASULU, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUPATHI EAST POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, AP- 517501. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.8190 of 2026 Dated 30.03.2026 1. GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a Writ Order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents more particularly the respondent no 4 in frequently summoning the petitioner to the police station without the registration of any crime and without following due procedure of law as illegal arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondents not to summon or call the petitioner to the police station except in accordance with law and to pass such order(s).” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri Nagi Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G. Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent police have forcibly seized the petitioner‟s shop and equipment, locked the petitioner‟s flex printing shop, and taken away the keys without following due process of law. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that the petitioner and his brother got printed a flexi banner containing words in Telugu stating that “B.R. Naidu Garu, TTD Chairman, is not seen,” along with his photograph. Upon a complaint lodged by one V. Giridhara, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.157 3 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.8190 of 2026 Dated 30.03.2026 of 2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 189(3), and 353(1)(c) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNS”), and took up investigation. In the course of investigation, the respondent police arrested the accused, and they were later released on bail. It is further submitted that, in the presence of mediators and by recording a mahazarnama, the petitioner‟s shop was seized. 5. Be that as it may, the Investigating Officer has no power to seize the shop, which was established under the Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for brevity, “the Act”), upon duly obtaining a valid licence for carrying on business or trade. The petitioner has filed the trade licence of the petitioner‟s shop vide Application No.08660-2023-LQ, dated 10.05.2023, which was granted by the competent authority under „the Act‟. The authority competent to cancel the licence or seize the shop is only the authority contemplated under „the Act‟. Respondent No.5 or any police official has no power to seize the shop without following due process of law, inasmuch as such seizure would have an adverse effect on the livelihood of the petitioner. 6. As per Sections 57, 58, and 59 of „the Act.,‟ the Chief Inspector of the local authority is empowered to grant licences for running any shop or establishment. Chapter V of „the Act.,‟ contemplates the powers and duties of the Chief Inspector and the Inspector. Section 57 of „the Act.,‟ provides for the appointment of the Chief Inspector and Inspectors by way of notification by the Government. Section 58 of „the Act.,‟ deals with the powers and duties of the 4 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.8190 of 2026 Dated 30.03.2026 Chief Inspector, while Section 59 of „the Act.,‟ deals with the powers and duties of the Inspector. Sections 58 and 59 of „the Act.,‟ empower the Chief Inspector or the Inspector, as the case may be, to enter the premises of an establishment within their local limits and conduct inspections. Section 61 of „the Act.,‟ contemplates penalties for offences under „the Act.,‟ and provides for imposition of fines for such violations. 7. The petitioner‟s shop falls within the definition of “shop” under Section 2(21) of „the Act.,‟ which defines a shop as any premises where any trade or business is carried on or services are rendered to customers. Even assuming that the petitioner or his brother has committed any offence, the respondent police are only empowered to seize the material object used in the commission of the offence. In the present case, the material object would be the alleged defamatory flexi. The respondent police have no authority to seize the printer, computer, or other machinery used for printing, as such seizure would violate the petitioner‟s fundamental right to livelihood by preventing him from carrying on his business. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the act of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in seizing the shop, locking the premises, and taking away the keys without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed to restore possession of the shop 5 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.8190 of 2026 Dated 30.03.2026 premises to the petitioner, return the keys, and also return the seized articles which are not the subject matter of the offence. 9. In the result, with the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, it is left open to respondent Nos.4 and 5 to approach the authorities concerned under the relevant enactment to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner, if the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 30.03.2026 KMS 6 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.8190 of 2026 Dated 30.03.2026 171 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO Writ PETITION No.8190 of 2026 Date: 30.03.2026 KMS