THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.22693 OF 2003 DATED 14TH FEBRUARY, 2011 BETWEEN Rayavarapu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana …Petitioner And Assistant Director of Agriculture, Tadepalligudem, W.G.District and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.22693 OF 2003 O R D E R The petitioner herein was constrained to approach this Court owing to the action of the Agricultural Officer, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, the second respondent, in sealing his shop without notice. This Court, by interim order dated 28.10.2003, directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to carry on the business according to the conditions of licence issued to him in the year 2003, if necessary by removing the seals from the shop. It is stated that pursuant to the above order the seals were removed and the petitioner has been running the shop since then. The petitioner was granted a licence for distribution of pesticides. His premises were inspected on 08.10.2003 by the Agricultural Officer, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, who, without initiating any proceedings consequent thereto, forcibly closed down the petitioner’s shop and sealed the same. The petitioner complained that he was neither put on notice nor was any order passed upon him prior to this action. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, the first respondent, filed a counter in the matter stating that an offence was registered against the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.295 of 2003 on the file of the local Police Station, in respect of sale of spurious stocks by the petitioner. It is on this basis that the Agricultural Officer, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, resorted to the action of sealing the petitioner’s premises. Sri C.Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that launching of criminal proceedings against his client would be an independent cause of action and that the authorities necessarily had to follow due procedure before sealing the petitioner’s shop and closing down his business. Admittedly, no notice or independent proceeding was issued against the petitioner prior to the sealing of his shop. The counter filed by the first respondent is studiously silent on this aspect. That being so, the action of the respondents in baldly resorting to sealing of the petitioner’s premises on the ground that a criminal case was lodged against him is clearly unsustainable in law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed declaring that the action of the respondents in sealing the petitioner’s shop without passing any order and without putting him on notice was illegal and arbitrary. It is however open to the respondents to take necessary action against the petitioner, if warranted, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 14TH FEBRUARY, 2011. PGS/VGSR