IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17524 of 2002 Between: Andhra Cements Limited Having its Head Office at 6-3-903/B/1, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, rep., by its General Manager (Commercial) Mr. S. Rajagopalan. ..... PETITIONER AND Jute Commissioner, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, Abdul Hameed Street, Calcutta. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S. Sashikiran for Sri Y. Venkatesh Reddy Counsel for the respondent : None The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17524 of 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 20.08.2002 issued by the respondent. Heard Sri S. Shashikiran representing Sri Y. Venkatesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the respondent. The petitioner is a cement manufacturing industry. On the ground that it violated orders dated 15.03.1995 and 30.06.1997 issued under Section 3(1) of the Jute Packaging Materials (Compulsory use in Packing Commodities) Act, 1987 directing it to pack cement in jute packaging material for supply or distribution up to the minimum of 50%, the respondent issued show cause notice dated 20.08.2002 calling up the petitioner to explain why penal action shall not be taken against it. This order has been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the notification was issued providing for package of cement in jute bags in the year 1987, no cement manufacturing industry could comply with the same as packaging of cement in jute bags was not technically viable. He further submitted that the Central Government exempted the cement manufacturing industries from complying with the said requirement by proceedings dated 30.06.1997. The learned counsel contended that as the Central government had itself given exemption, there is no justification for the respondent to issue the impugned show cause notice seeking prosecution of the petitioner for non- compliance with the packaging order prior to grant of exemption by the Government of India. In my considered view, the writ petition is misconceived because, no order affecting the interests of the petitioner has been passed. The respondent has merely issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why penal action shall not be taken against it. If the petitioner has convincing reasons, it can satisfy the respondent to drop the penal action. The writ petition is, therefore, premature and the same is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate explanation to the impugned show cause notice. As time granted to the petitioner expired, the petitioner is granted six weeks’ time to file explanation before the respondent. If such explanation is received, the respondent shall give the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing before passing appropriate order in accordance with law. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.21985 of 2002 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ______________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 25.09.2009 ES