2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17974
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K SREENIVASA REDDY
Medarametla Jeevan Sai – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 17307/2021
##PAGE1##
2026:APHC:18012 APHC010294422021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3327]
AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 17307/2021 Between:
1. MEDARAMETLA JEEVAN SAI, S/O SOMASEKHAR AGE
3L YEARS, OCC BUSINESS IN MINERAL WATER, R/O VENKANNAPALEM VILLAGE, MANUBOLU MANDAL,
SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. MEDARAMETLA SOMASEKHAR, S/O RAMASUBBAIAH AGE 59, 0CC. CULTIVATION, R/O VENKANNAPALEM VILLAGE, MANUBOLU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANUBOLU POLICE STATION, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH
3. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, VENKANNAPALEM PANCHAYAT, MANUBOLU MANDAL,SPSR NELLORE
DISTRICT.A.P.
...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 toto issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus' declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in harassing the
##PAGE2##SRK, J
2 W.P.No.17307 of 2021 2026:APHC:18012
petitioners by calling to the police station without any violation of law under the guise of violation of general law which is not applicable when there is special law that is. Food Adulteration Act under which the respondents 2 and have no power to file any case and threatening the petitioners and abusing the 1st petitioner by the 2nd respondent thus violating Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to harass the petitioners and not to call them to the
Police Station
IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to harass the petitioners and to cause any interference in the water manufacture and supply business of the
petitioners, pending disposal of the main writ petition
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. V R MACHAVARAM Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following:
##PAGE3##SRK, J
3 W.P.No.17307 of 2021 2026:APHC:18012
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17307 of 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to declare the
action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in harassing and threatening the petitioners by calling to Police Station under the guise of violation of general law, which is not applicable when there is special law that is Food Adulteration Act under which the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no power to file any case and threatening the petitioners and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to harass the petitioners and not to
call them to Police Station.
2. Case of the petitioners is that 1st petitioner is an un- employee; in order to survive and to eke his livelihood, he established a mineral water plant in the name and style “Amma Water Suppliers” in his village Venkannapalem, Manubolu Mandal, SPSR Nellore District in clean environment with RO technology by obtaining certificate of registration called “AIIMS CERTIFICATION” dated 07.03.2020 valid for a period of 3 years for manufacture and supply of RO purified drinking water by complying with ISO 22000:2005 requirements. There are about
##PAGE4##SRK, J
4 W.P.No.17307 of 2021 2026:APHC:18012
40 mineral water plants in Manubolu mandal, who are all following the same technology. Due to change of political scenario in Andhra Pradesh State, the local political leaders, in the Venkannapalem village, have been threatening the petitioners and causing hurdles in running the business. It is further stated that 2nd respondent called the petitioners to the police station and made them sit in the poli