IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 18426 of 2008 Between: Eureka Forbes Limited, an existing Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Kolkatta - 700 025 and its Corporte Head Office at Ground Floor, Plot No. 123, Konkan Coop. Housing Society Limited, Konkan Nagar Hall, Lt. P.K. Marg, Mahim (West), Mumbai - 400 016, Rep. by its Area Accounts Officer Mr. T. Srinivas. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, Through its Secretary to Consumer Affairs, 461-A, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Legal Metrology, Through the District Inspector Legal Metrology, Ranga Reddy - II. 3 The District Inspector, Legal Metrology, Ranga Reddy - II, Tirumala Hills, Road No. 4, Plot No. 78, Malakpet Hyderabad - 500 036. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, more particularly a Writof or in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Directions: a) declaring the impugned Seizure Memo and Panchanams dated 22-02-2008 and as also letter dated 22-05-2008 as issued by Respondent No.3 viz., the District Inspector, Legal Metrology Ranga Reddy - II, against the Petitioner Company as illgal, capricious, non-est in law, violative of principles of natural justice and wholly without jurisdiction and consquently, set-aside the same; b) to the Respondents to return the articles seized vide Seizure Memo and Panchnams dated 22-02-2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.R.SRIDHARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO :18426 of 2008 ORAL ORDER Sri S.Ramesh, Advocate representing Sri C.R.Sridharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. Permission is accorded. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. _________ G.ROHINI,J 13th October,2008 *T SNR