Vinayaga Enterprises v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Counsel for the Respondents: B D MAHESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 2 APHC010352982013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 20071 OF 2013 Between:

1. VUMMINENI MUNERAL WATER PRODUCTS PVT.LTD & 5 OTHERS, Plot No.67 & 68, B Block, IDA, Auto Nagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam-530 012, rep. by its Managing Director, V.Sivanageswara Rao, S/o Abbaiah, aged about 48 years, R/o.H.No.B5, Pragati Royal Apartments, Packers Layout, Lata Hospital Up, Visakhapatnam.

2. C.K.R. Water Products, Survey No. 130/3, Kurmanipalem, Besides Sai Baba Temple, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist rep. by its Proprietor, K.Simmi Naidu, S/o.K.Ramakrishna, aged about 40 years, R/o D.No.65-6-209, Gajuwaka Depot, M.H. Colony, Visakhapatnam

3. Divya Tejaswi Beverages,, D Block , F-10, Auto Nagar Gajuwaka, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist. rep. by its Authorized Person, U.Srinivas Rao, S/o. late U.Krishnarao, aged about 48 years, R/o. Quarter No. 315/A Sector - 2, Ukku Nagaram, Visakhapatnam 530 032.

4. Neha Beverages, Plot No. 45, B Block, Auto Nagar, Gajuwaka, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist rep. by its Proprietor, K.Rama Lingaiah, S/o. Subbarao, aged about 36 years, R/o. Plot No - 45 , B Block, Auto Nagar, Gajuwaka, Gajuwaka Mandal, Viskhapatnam. 3

5. Tirumala Industries, Plot No.85,86, Narava, Balaji Nagar, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist rep. by its Managing Partner, Ch.Ramalakshmi, W/o. Ch.Srinivas Rao, aged about 37 years, R/o D.No. 28-15-3, Vadlapudi, Visakhapatnam.

6. Devi Industries, Plot No. 276,277 Thalarivanipalem, Aganampudi Gajuwaka, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist rep. by its Proprietor, K.A.Raju, S/o late K. Guruvulu, aged about 41 years, Plot No. 276 & 277 Thalarivanipalem, Aganampudi, Gajuwaka, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioners AND

1. GOVT OF AP MUNICIPAL ADMN DEPT 2 OTHERS, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. Director of Municipal Administration, Govt. of A. P., Hyderabad.

3. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. Counsel for the Petitioners: V V L N SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV The Court made the following order: ...Respondents 4 APHC010766582013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 20072 OF 2013 Between:

1. Deepak Aqua Flows Pvt., Ltd., D.No.5-52, Maarikavalasa Village, Chinna Gadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist rep. by its Managing Director, M.V.S. Srinivas, S/o late M.Bapujee, aged about 44 years, R/o H.No.5, Balaji Bay Mount, Rushikonda, Visakhapatnam.

2. S.V. Industry, D.No.18-38, Palli Narayana Puram Prahalad Puram, Vepagunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam 530 027 rep. by its Proprietor, V.Srinivasa Sastri, S/o late V.M.Sastri, aged about 50 years, D.No.49-48-1, Santhipuram, Visakhapatnam- 530 016.

3. Ramalakshmi Enterprises, D.No.6-14 ,Sidhardha Nagar, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam - 530 041, rep by its Proprietor, K.Usha Rani, W/o. K.V.S.Satish, aged about 33 years, R/o D.No.6-14, Sidhardha Nagar, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam - 530 041.

4. Venkata Sai Beverages, D.No.1-156, Kommadi, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam - 530 048 rep. by its Proprietor T. Vijaya Mohan, SR). T.Rangarao, aged about 45 years, R/o. D.No.49-54-5/4, Balayya Sastry Layout , Visakhapatnam- 530 013.

5. Vijaya Ganapathi Aqua Industries, Survey No. 370, K. Nagarapalem Panchayat, Kapula Vuppada village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, 5 Visakhapatnam Dist rep. by its Proprietor, G. Vijaya Parvathi, W/o G.Lakshmana Murthy, aged about 43 years, R/o. D.No.1/135, K Nagarapalem Panchayat Kapula Vuppada Post, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dist.

6. Merina Minerals,, D.No.6-150, Chand, Rampalem, Madhurawada, Chinna Gadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District rep. by its Proprietor, K.Adinarayana, S/o late K.Koteswararao, aged about 32 years, R/o. D.No.7-152/14 , Flat No.303, Nimish Nivas Apartment, Revallapalem Road, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

7. Unique Enterprises, D.No.10-2-34, Sainagar, Aganampudi, Visakhapatnam rep. by its Proprietor, Y.Sudhakar, S/o. Sanyasi Setty, aged about 37 years, R/o. D.No.31-17-5/5, Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam-46. ...Petitioners AND

1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. Director of Municipal Administration, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad.

3. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. Counsel for the Petitioners: V V L N SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV ...Respondents 6 The Court made the following ORAL COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.22016 of 2013, W.P.Nos.20071 of 2013 and 20072 of 2013 Writ Petition No.22016 of 2013 is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of action of the Respondents in seeking to interfere with the manufacturing activity of the Petitioners without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded etc and grant such other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..…”

2. Heard Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that all the facts in the three Writ Petitions are identical and this Court had granted similar interim protection in all the Writ Petitions. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Writ Petition No.22016 of 2013 are referred to in this Common Order.

3. The Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.22016 of 2013 has approached this Court complaining of interference by the Official Respondents with regard to the manufacture of packaged drinking water. This Writ Petition would indicate that there is no adverse order of inaction passed by the Respondents, whereas the Writ Petitioner alleged that the authorities have been interfering with the Petitioner’s unit. The Petitioner has secured an interim order on 26.07.2013 in W.P.M.P.No.26982 of 2013 to the effect that “there shall be interim direction 7 not to interfere with the manufacturing activity of the Writ Petitioner except by putting it on notice and following the procedure contemplated under law”.

4. It transpires from record that the respondents were given liberty to follow the due process of law by issuing notice. It transpires from record that the respondents have not filed even a scrap of paper to indicate whether any notice has been issued to the Writ Petitioners in this long gap of almost 13 years since the date of passing of the interim order. It also transpires that the respondents have unfortunately not evinced any interest in filing Counter Affidavit. Perhaps, the Writ Petitioner, taking undue advantage of the interim order, would have been drawing water from a borewell for packaging of the water bottles in an unabated manner. The Writ Petitioner has not impleaded the Tahsildar who is the competent authority to initiate legal proceedings for violation of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002. Therefore, it appears that the Writ Petitioner had unduly taken advantage of the interim order passed without impleading the Tahsildar and drawn the water till date.

5. Under these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these Writ Petitions with a direction to the respondent authorities including the Revenue Authorities to act in accordance with law in the event that the petitioners are found to be violating any statue including the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002.

6. With these observations and directions, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No Order as to Costs. Needless to state that the interim orders passed in these Writ Petitions stand vacated. 8

7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 02.02.2026 RMR 9 134 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos.22016, 20071 and 20072 of 2013

02.02.2026 RMR