Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Boppana Prasad, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 24 September, 2024
APHC010404392024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA Bench Sr.No:-
4
PRADESH [3483]
AT AMARAVATI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 782 of 2024
Sri Boppana Prasad ...Appellant
Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents
**********
Advocate for the appellant : Sri P. Veera Reddy,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Sri T. D. Phani Kumar.
Advocate for respondent : Smt S. Pranathi,
Nos.1 to 4 learned Special Government Pleader.
Advocate for respondent : Sri Srinivas Basava
No.5
Advocate for respondent : Sri P. Aditya Harsha Vardhan
Nos.6 to 14.
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DATE : 24th September 2024
PC:
The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 30.08.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.14466 of 2024.
2. The petition has been dismissed on the ground that disputed questions
of fact are involved in the petition, which are required to be adjudicated by a
competent Court of civil jurisdiction.
3. It appears that the appellant/petitioner had obtained on lease a godown
from respondent No.5 i.e., Sri Lakshmi Venkata Narasimha Raya Primary
Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society for a period of four months. A lease
agreement was also stated to have been executed between the parties. In the
interregnum, it appears that 840 bags of black gram (each bag weighing 50
kgs.) were stored in the godown which the appellant wishes to remove from
the godown premises leased out to him. However, it appears that the
appellant was prevented from removing such stocks on the basis of objections
which were raised by private respondent nos.6 to 14, who became interveners
before the learned single Judge during the currency of the writ proceedings.
Respondent Nos.6 to 14 claim that the stocks of black gram stored in the
godown premises belong to them. It also appears that the premises have
since been locked. Whereas communication dated 14.06.2024 issued by the
Chief Executive Officer of the Society reflects that the locks were put on the
godown under the instructions of the police, a copy of the complaint placed on
record dated 08.06.2024 filed by the same Chief executive Officer reflects that
the godown had been locked by some private persons.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 Society, however, makes a
statement that the godown had not been locked by the Society or any of its
officers and therefore, the dispute was purely between the petitioner and
private entities, which would not entitle the petitioner to maintain a writ petition
before this Court.
5. In view of the statement having been so made by the learned counsel
for respondent No.5 Society and in view of the disputed questions of fact
having arisen in the present controversy, in our opinion, the view expressed
by the learned single Judge that the parties should resort to remedies as are
available under law cannot be found fault with. In case the godown has been
locked by private entities, it would be open to the petitioner to avail remedies
as are available under law.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J
AMD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 782 of 2024
Dt:24.09.2024
AMD
