THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.1156 OF 2010 Dated 5th March, 2010 Between: S.D.S.Babji …Petitioner And The Tahsildar and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Industry and Commerce The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner’s business unit being run in the name and stile M/s Om Sairam Enterprises, Giripuram, Tirupati Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be involved in manufacturing flavoured water. According to him, the product manufactured by him falls within the definition of ‘proprietary food’ under Rule 37A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The petitioner averred that according to letter dated 15.01.2009 addressed by the official of Bureau of Indian Standards, no standards have been prescribed for flavoured water. The petitioner, therefore, pleaded that in the absence of existence of Bureau of Indian Standards, the respondents have no authority to prevent him from manufacturing and selling the abovementioned product. I have heard Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. In his affidavit, the petitioner has not specifically pleaded as to which of the respondents and in what manner interfered with his business. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by the alleged interference of the respondents, he should have first approached the authority, which interfered with his manufacturing activity. The law is well settled that before seeking a writ of Mandamus, the petitioner should first approach the authority by demanding justice. (See Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury v. State of West Bengal[1] and Amrit Lal Berry, K. N. Kapur v. Collector of Central Excise Central Revenue[2]). As the writ petition is not based on a specific cause of action, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a detailed representation to respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks. If such a representation is received by him, respondent No.2 shall consider and pass a detailed order. In the event, respondent No.2 disagrees with the plea of the petitioner, he shall serve a copy of the order on the petitioner before taking action according to law. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.1546 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 5th March, 2010 vrn [1] AIR 1972 SC 2060 [2] AIR 1975 SC 538