IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 9471 of 2008 Between: Bio Vaccines Private Limited, rep byits C.S. Ravi Chairman and Managing Director, R/o at B-16, Second Main Road, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad-92. ..... PETITIONER AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary, Labour employment Training and Factories Department, Secretarit Buildings, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT 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 issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the reivew appliction vide Letter No. 265/Lab.I/A1/2007-3 dated 16-08-2007, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner companyto close down the industry with effect from 6th February, 2007 and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAJYA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 9471 of 2008 Order: The main grievance of the petitioner-Company in this writ petition is that the respondent, while passing the impugned order dated 16.08.2007, wherein he rejected the request of the petitioner-Company for grant of permission for closure of their unit, has not taken into consideration the review application filed by them on 08.01.2007. Despite granting several adjournments, no instructions are reported by the learned Government Pleader for Labour so far. However, a perusal of the impugned order would show that there is no mention in the same either about the review application said to have been filed by the petitioner or any contents thereof. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.08.2007 is set aside. The respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders in the matter, after taking into consideration the review application filed by the petitioner, expeditiously. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 30.06.2008 Nsr