SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17669

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V.SUJATHA
WINGS LIFESTYLE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WP 29749/2024



##PAGE1##

2025:APHC:61590

APHC010566852024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION NO: 29749/2024

Between:

1. W INGS LIFESTYLE, M.G. ROAD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING

DIRECTOR, PANKAJ NAHATA, S/O NAGRAJ NAHATA, AGED

ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O 304, UMRAO KAMAL RAJ APARTMENT,

SARDAR PATEL MARG, JAIPUR- 302001.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. T HE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LEGAL

METROLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, ANDHRA

PRADESH.

2. T HE INSPECTOR, LEGAL METROLOGY, WEIGHTS AND

MEASUREMENTS DEPARTMENT, CIRCLE-1, VIJAYAWADA, NTR

DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the

nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Notice bearing No.

PC/219/160/2024-25 /01 dated 24.11.2024 issued by the Respondent No.2

as manifestly arbitrary, per se illegal, capricious, whimsical, per se illegal, pre-

determined, contrary and opposed to the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and

Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 besides being dehors

jurisdiction and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14, 19

##PAGE2##

2

2025V:SA,JP HC:61590

W.P.No.29749 of 2024

and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set-aside the same

and/or pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

pleased to vacate the interim order dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.No.29749 of

2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

may be pleased to hear the WP NO 29749 of 2024 under the caption "For

Being Mentioned" to modift the interim order in WP NO 29749 of 2024 Dated

18.12.2024 as 3Months for Furnishing bank guarantees instead of 6months in

favor of Respondent No.1 and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

The Court made the following:

##PAGE3##

3

2025V:SA,JP HC:61590

W.P.No.29749 of 2024

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“….to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ

of Mandamus to declare the Notice bearing No. PC/219/160/2024-25 /01

dated 24.11.2024 issued by the Respondent No.2 as manifestly arbitrary,

per se illegal, capricious, whimsical, per se illegal, pre-determined,

contrary and opposed to the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Legal

Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 besides being dehors

jurisdiction and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14, 19

and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set-aside the

same and/or pass….”

2. The petitioner herein is a company registered under the provisions of

the Companies Act, 2013 and is being represented by its Managing Director.

The petitioner company is a manufacturer and dealer of clothes across India.

As a part of its business, the premises admeasuring 800 square feet in

D.No.40-1-53, Revenue ward No.10, block 3, Benz circle, Vijayawada, NTRD

district was leased out and after obtaining necessary trade license and

permissions, the petitioner has been continuing its business by running a retail

cloth store.

3. While the matter stood thus, on 24.11.2024, the 2nd respondent visited

the petitioner’s clothing store and found that the size of the commodities were

not declared in metric units as required under Rule 6

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top