##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:32141 APHC010159932026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 8190/2026 Between:

1. K ATPADI SUNIL,, S/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION RUNNING RAMESH ARTS(FLEX PRINTING SHOP), R/O 18-38-S4-939-1, SUNDARAIAH NAGAR, TIRUPATI URBAN

TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517501 ...PETITIONER

AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,

GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238.

2. T HE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR

DISTRICT, AP-522503.A

3. T HE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, TIRUPAHI, AP-517501.

4. T HE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TIRUPATHI EAST POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, AP-517501.

5. S RI K SRINIVASULU, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUPATHI EAST POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, AP-

517501.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

2

202D6r:.AYPLRH,C J :32141 W.P.No.8190 of 2026

Dated 30.03.2026

1. GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following:

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been 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 declaring the action of respondents more particularly the respondent no 4 in frequently summoning the petitioner to the police station without the registration of any crime and without following due procedure of law as illegal arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondents not to summon or call the petitioner to the police station except in accordance

with law and to pass such order(s).”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant

Government Pleader.

3. Sri Nagi Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G. Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent police have forcibly seized the petitioner‟s shop and equipment, locked the petitioner‟s flex printing shop, and taken away the keys without

following due process of law.

4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that the petitioner and his brother got printed a flexi banner containing words in Telugu stating that “B.R. Naidu Garu, TTD Chairman, is not seen,” along with his photograph. Upon a complaint lodged by one V. Giridhara, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.157

3

202D6r:.AYPLRH,C J :32141 W.P.No.8190 of 2026

Dated 30.03.2026

of 2026 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 189(3), and 353(1)(c) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNS”), and took up investigation. In the course of investigation, the respondent police arrested the accused, and they were later released on bail. It is further submitted that, in the presence of mediators and by recording

a mahazarnama, the petitioner‟s shop was seized.

5. Be that as it may, the Investigating Officer has no power to seize the shop, which was established under the Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for brevity, “the Act”), upon duly obtaining a valid licence for carrying on business or trade. The petitioner has filed the trade licence of the petitioner‟s shop vide Application No.08660-2023-LQ, dated 10.05.2023, which was granted by the competent authority under „the Act‟. The authority competent to cancel the licence or seize the shop is only the authority contemplated under „the Act‟. Respondent No.5 or any police official has no power to seize the shop without following due process of law, inasmuch as such seizure would

have an adverse