Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Thandyala Prasada Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
****
WRIT PETITION NO: 11074 of 2023
THANDYALA PRASADA RAO, S/O BHASKARA RAO, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS RIO PONDURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI AND OTHERS
... Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 07.05.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No
_____________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Page 2 of 22
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 11074 OF 2023
% 07.05.2026
Writ Petition No. 11074 of 2023
THANDYALA PRASADA RAO, S/O BHASKARA RAO, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS RIO PONDURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI AND OTHERS
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri P.Raj Kumar, learned counsel
for the petitioner
^ Counsel for Respondents : P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj
and Rural Development, Sri Chaitanya,
learned counsel representing Sri
Y.Koteswara Rao, Sri G.Ananda Rao,
learned counsel
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2014) 9 SCC 105
2. (1980) 3 SCC 1
3. (2021) 2 SCC 551
4. (2016) 9 SCC 426
5. AIR 1963 SC 1633
6. [(2003) 3 SCC 541
7. [(2003) 5 SCC 413]
8. [(2003) 1 SCC 123]
9. (2004) 6 SCC 588
This Court made the following:
Page 3 of 22
APHC010212152023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 11074/2023
Between:
1. THANDYALA PRASADA RAO, S/O BHASKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT
50 YEARS RIO PONDURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL SRIKAKULAM
DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PANCHAYAT RAJ WING SRIKAKULAM
DISTRICT
3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT
4. DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ
DEPARTMENT SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT
5. PONDURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS PANCHAYAT
SECRETARY PONDURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL SRIKAKULAM
DISTRICT
6. ALLAMSETTY RAVI S/O APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC
GOVERNMENT TEACHER, R/O H.NO. 2-895, HOSPITAL STREET,
PONDURU ( VILLAGE AND MANDALAM) SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DT.17.09.2024 VIDE
ORDERS PASSED IN I.A.NO.02 OF 2023.
7. ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REP BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. R7 IS
SUO-MOTO IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER
DT.08.12.2025
...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 to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in
Rc.No.60/2022 dated 09.02.2023 issued by the 5th Respondent without
issuing any show cause notice in respect of Petitioner's Sweet preparing unit
situated on Bus stand to MPDO Office Road, behind the hospital road,
Ponduru Gram Panchayat, Ponduru Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District
as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational and violative of principles of natural
Page 4 of 22
justice as also violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and
consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner's
Sweet preparing unit situated on Bus stand to MPDO Office Road, behind the
hospital road, Ponduru Gram Panchayat, Ponduru Village and Mandal,
Srikakulam District and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 not to interfere with the Petitioner's Sweet preparing
unit situated on Bus stand to MPDO Office Road, behind the hospital road,
Ponduru Gram Panchayat, Ponduru Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District
and pass
IA NO: 2 OF 2023
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
allow the present petition for impleadment and to be arrayed as a respondent
No.6 i.e.,Allamsetty Ravi S/o Appa Rao, aged about 55 years, Occupation:
Government Teacher, R/o H.No.2- 895, Hospital Street, Ponduru, Srikakulam
District to this W.P.No.11074/2023 and consequential amendments in the I.A
pending in the writ petition pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P RAJKUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja
Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra
2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV
3. BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO
4. G ANANDA RAO
The Court made the following:
::ORDER :
:
Heard Sri P.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh
Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural
Development for the respondents 1 to 4, Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel
representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for the 5th
respondent, and Sri G.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the 6th respondent.
2. Assailing the notice vide R.C.No.60/2022 dated 09.02.2023 (Ex.P3),
issued by the Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary
Page 5 of 22
and a violation of Principles of Natural Justice, and Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India, the above writ petition was filed.
3. The petitioner, a permanent resident of Ponduru Village and Mandal,
has been eking out his livelihood by preparing and selling sweets, filed the
above writ petition.
4. The facts, in brief, as set out in the writ affidavit are as follows:-
The petitioner took a small portion from one Sri Dunna Surya Prakesh
of Ponduru Village on rent to run a sweet shop. The said unit is located behind
the hospital road, on the road leading from the Bus Stand to the MPDO Office,
Ponduru. The petitioner got the required license from the 5th respondent to run
the sweet shop. The petitioner has been using wood powder and corn waste
to ignite the oven, as it is cost-effective. No smoke whatsoever would be
emanated. The petitioner had taken all precautionary measures while
preparing the sweets. The unit is not causing any inconvenience to the public.
He also erected a stack in order to prevent the spreading of smoke in any
way.
5. Be that as it may, the Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent issued
a notice vide R.C.No.60/2022 dated 31.01.2023 (Ex.P2), calling upon the
petitioner to close the unit within forty-eight hours. Thereafter, the Panchayat
Secretary of the 5th respondent issued a notice dated 09.02.2023 (Ex.P3). The
petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 22.02.2023 (Ex.P4). The
Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent and other officials inspected the
Page 6 of 22
premises on 11.12.2022, based on the complaint made by the encroachers. In
the notice dated 09.02.2023 (Ex.P3), the petitioner was directed to use LPG
gas to prepare the sweets. However, the authorities of the Pollution Control
Board advised using cleaner fuels to avoid smoke nuisance. Without
considering the same, the notice was issued.
6. An interim order was granted on 03.05.2023 directing the authorities not
to enforce the notice dated 09.02.2023 (Ex.P3).
7. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit vide W.P.USR.No.29808/2026
dated 07.03.2026, after the inspection by the officials of the Andhra Pradesh
Pollution Control Board. In para-5 of the affidavit, it was pleaded that the
petitioner has been running the unit by taking the premises on lease from one
Smt. Malipeddi Parvathi. The petitioner reiterated the averments in the writ
affidavit. The petitioner also filed a memo vide W.P.USR.No.11532/2026, by
annexing the receipts issued by the Gram Panchayat to run the shop.
8. The 6th respondent, a resident of Ponduru Village, filed I.A.No.2 of 2023
to come on record. The said interlocutory application was ordered on
17.09.2024.
9. Thereafter, the 7th respondent, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board,
was impleaded suo-moto by an order dated 08.12.2025.
10. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the 5th respondent. It was
contended, inter alia, that the 6th respondent and others made a complaint
dated 19.12.2022 about the Karkhana located in a residential area and the
Page 7 of 22
nuisance caused thereby. The Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent
issued notices dated 20.12.2022, 31.01.2023 and 09.02.2023. The 3rd
respondent vide Rc.No.3674/2022/P7 dated 19.12.2022 (Ex.R7), issued a
memo to the Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent to issue instructions
to the sweet-making unit with reference to the observations of the Andhra
Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Srikakulam. As such, the notices dated
31.01.2022 (Ex.P2) and 09.02.2023 (Ex.P3) were issued. The petitioner is
selling sweets in a shop named “Meenakshi Sweets Centre”. The tax receipts
or license produced by the petitioner relate only to the said shop and not to
the Karkhana. Neither the petitioner paid tax, nor the 5th respondent collected
tax in respect of the Karkhana where the sweets are being prepared.
11. The 6th respondent filed a separate counter-affidavit. It was contended,
inter alia, that he, along with other residents of Gadala Street and Hospital
Street of Ponduru Village, filed a complaint on 19.12.2022 in Spandana
regarding the smoke emitted from the sweet preparation unit run by the
petitioner. The petitioner has been using wood powder and corn waste to
ignite the oven. The unit/karkhana is located within a residential area and has
been causing nuisance and also health problems to the residents in the
vicinity. The Environmental Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control
Board, Regional Office, Srikakulam, instructed the District Panchayat Officer
to direct the petitioner to use cleaner fuels to avoid smoke nuisance to the
surrounding residents. Thereafter, the notice dated 09.02.2023 (Ex.P3) was
Page 8 of 22
issued. The petitioner has been running the unit without a license. Ex.P1 is not
a license. Eventually, prayed the court to dismiss the writ petition.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
respondents reiterated their contentions as per the averments made in the writ
affidavit and the counter-affidavits.
13. The point for consideration is:
Whether the notice dated 09.02.2023 (Ex.P3) issued by the Panchayat
Secretary of the 5th respondent is legally sustainable?
14. Shorn of all details, there is no dispute that the petitioner is
manufacturing the sweets by taking premises on lease from Smt. Malipeddi
Parvathi. The said premises located in a residential area. The petitioner is
selling sweets by running a shop under the name “Meenakshi Sweets Centre”.
Ex.P1 and the receipts filed along with the memo dated 31.01.2022 issued by
the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat relate to the said shop and
not to the manufacturing unit where the sweets are being prepared.
15. It is also an undisputed fact that, as per the averments made in the writ
affidavit, the petitioner has been using wood powder and corn waste to ignite
the oven. The petitioner has also erected a stack.
16. In para-3 of the writ affidavit, the petitioner spelt out that he has been
preparing and selling sweets in Ponduru Village for the last twenty years and
had taken a small portion from one Sri Dunna Surya Prakesh of Ponduru
Page 9 of 22
Village on rent to run the sweet shop. In the additional affidavit filed by the
petitioner vide W.P.USR.No.29808/2026 dated 07.03.2026, the petitioner
pleaded that he has been running the manufacturing unit in premises taken on
lease from Smt. Malipeddi Parvathi for more than ten years.
17. Thus, as seen from the statements, on oath, made by the petitioner in
the writ affidavit and the other affidavit, the shop is different from the
manufacturing unit where the sweets are being manufactured. In fact, the
intelligent drafting of the affidavit, prima facie, does not reveal the
manufacturing unit and the shop as separate entities. However, in the affidavit
filed dated 07.03.2026, the petitioner made it clear that the manufacturing unit
is being run in the premises belonging to one Smt. Malipeddi Parvathi. The
petitioner, in the considered opinion of this court, should have disclosed all the
facts vividly.
18. The petitioner contends that the Gram Panchayat has been collecting
license fees. The fee collected by the Gram Panchayat and paid by the
petitioner is only for the purpose of running the sweet shop. Thus, merely
making payment of the fee to run the shop does not confer on the petitioner
the benefit of manufacturing sweets on different premises. In fact, such a plea
is misconceived. The petitioner has not obtained any license for
manufacturing sweets. During the course of the argument, learned counsel for
the petitioner contended that the petitioner made a representation to the
District Collector on 30.03.2026 in PGRS. In fact, such a representation was
Page 10 of 22
made after commencement of the arguments. The said representation was
filed vide WPUSR 40415 of 2026 dated 29.04.2026.
19. In the case at hand, the authorities of the Pollution Control Board visited
the unit and submitted the report. The report noted as follows:
“…the Board officials inspected the Sweet making (Karkana) on
05.01.2025 and observed the sweet making (Karkana) have been
using the waste wood powder and corn waste instead of cleaner
fuels (i.e., LPG) and provided stack with height of about 20 feet.
The sweet Karkana is operating 2 to 3 hours daily and sweet
Karkana is located at residential area. During the inspection, it
was observed that initially, slightly smoke is generating from
Karkana.
It is submitted that the A.P. Pollution Control Board is not issuing
any kind of permission to sweet making (Karkana) and these are
comes under commercial activities which can be enforced by
local authorities only to avoid nuisances.”
20. In fact, the 6th respondent, along with the counter-affidavit, filed a
communication from the officials of the Pollution Control Board to the District
Panchayat Officer as Ex.R5 and Ex.R6. The Environmental Engineer, Andhra
Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Srikakulam, observed that
the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board is not granting any kind of
permission to the sweet-making unit (Karkana), and they come under
commercial activities, which can be enforced by local authorities only to avoid
nuisance. However, the authority requested the District Panchayat Officer,
Page 11 of 22
Srikakulam, to instruct the sweet-making unit to change the fuel from wood
powder and corn waste to LPG gas to avoid nuisance in the surrounding area.
21. The contention of the learned counsel for the 6th respondent is that
huge smoke is emitting due to the preparation of the sweets, and it is causing
a health hazard to the residents in the vicinity, which may not be appreciated
by this Court due to the report by the Pollution Control authority. In fact, the
report of the Pollution Control Board does not indicate the emission of huge
amounts of smoke.
22. Does such a report of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board
entitle the petitioner to prepare the sweets without getting permission
from the competent authority?
Let this Court examine the relevant provisions in this regard. Section 119
of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which is relevant, is
extracted herewith.
“Section 119: Purposes for which places may not be used
without licenceThe gram panchayat may notify in the prescribed manner, that no
place within the limits of the village shall be used for any one or
more of the purposes specified in the rules made in this behalf
without a licence issued by the executive authority in the
prescribed manner and except in accordance with the conditions
specified in such licence:
Provided that no such notification shall take effect until the expiry
of a period of sixty days from the date of publication.”
Page 12 of 22
23. A plain reading of the section extracted supra would indicate that,
without getting a valid license from the executive authority, the petitioner could
not have converted the residential house into a manufacturing unit. As
discussed supra, the premises/house, wherein the petitioner is manufacturing
or preparing the sweets, is located in the midst of other residential houses.
Hence, the petitioner should have obtained permission from the authority.
24. The State Government framed Rules while exercising the powers under
Sec 263 (1) read with sections 119 and 120 of the Andhra Pradesh
Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the Rules relating to levy of Licence Fees for grant
of permission and licence in respect of machinery or manufacturing plants
driven by electrical power/steam water or mechanical rules, 1966. The Rules
were framed to regulate the conditions of grant for licence for installation or
manufacturing within the limits of Gram Panchayats.
25. Rule 3(n) of 1996 Rules which is relevant is extracted below:
“3. No place within the limits of Gram Panchayat shall be used for
any one or more of the purposes as specified below without a
licence issued by the executive authority.
The purposes for which places may not be used without licence
are:–
…
(n) Preparing flour or articles made of flour for human
consumption or sweetmeats;
…”
Page 13 of 22
26. Section 31 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 prescribes the
license and registration of food businesses. Section 2(n) of the Act defines
food business means, any undertaking, whether for profit or not and whether
public or private, carrying out any of the activities related to any stage of
manufacture, processing, packaging, storage, transportation, distribution of
food, import and includes food services, catering services, sale of food or food
ingredients.
27. Thus, the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 mandates the
registration and license from the Designating Authority to manufacture and to
run the food business. However, in the case at hand, going by the averments
in the affidavit, the petitioner, without registering and getting permission from
the Designating Authority, has been carrying out the business. Thus, the
petitioner violated the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
28. Thus, the discussion supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the petitioner has been manufacturing the sweets without permission from the
competent authority either under Section 119 of the Andhra Pradesh
Panchayat Raj Act or the Designated Authority under Section 31 of the Food
Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
29. Should the show cause notice contain all the information vis-Ã -vis
the infringements?
A show-cause notice should contain the violations or infringements,
enabling the recipient to submit a proper explanation. Such a course, if
Page 14 of 22
adopted, would meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice. The
law, on this aspect, is no longer res integra.
30. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gorkha Security Services Vs. Govt. (NCT
of Delhi)1, held that to fulfill the requirement of principles of natural justice,
show cause notice should meet the following two requirements viz., (i) The
material/grounds to be stated which according to the department necessitates
an action; and (ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken.
31. In Nasir Ahmad vs. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee
Property, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Others2, the Hon’ble Apex Court
held thus:
“It is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the
basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable
the noticee to answer the case against him. If these conditions are
not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any
reasonable opportunity of being heard.”
32. In UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India
and Others3, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:
“At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle of
civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is
sought to be taken or whose right or interests are being affected
should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The
basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts,
the authority concerned should give to the affected party a notice
1
(2014) 9 SCC 105
2
(1980) 3 SCC 1
3
(2021) 2 SCC 551
Page 15 of 22of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such notice
should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the
penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and
unambiguously. An order traveling beyond the bounds of notice is
impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent.”
33. However, in the case at hand, the notices dated 31.01.2023 (Ex.P2)
and 09.02.2023 (Ex.P3) do not indicate these violations, enabling the
petitioner to submit an explanation. A show-cause notice should contain the
violations, enabling the notice/recipient to submit a proper explanation. In
notices dated 31.01.2023 (Ex.P2) and 09.02.2023 (Ex.P3), it was pointed out
that the petitioner has been manufacturing the sweets by using wood powder
and corn waste etc., due to the emission of smoke, the neighbors are
suffering and hence directed the petitioner to close the unit within forty-eight
hours or else to run the business by using LPG gas.
34. The notices, in this case at hand, do not indicate the violation of public
health or any other statutory provisions. The petitioner, in his explanation,
requested the Government to provide an alternative site or some time to shift
the business. The petitioner has been carrying out the business by virtue of
the interim order granted by this Court. This Court is also conscious that
allowing the sweet manufacturing unit within the residential area, in the
absence of any precautions by the manufacturer, will definitely cause
inconvenience to the residents in the vicinity. However, it being a disputed
question of fact, this Court is not recording any finding at this juncture.
Page 16 of 22
35. Whether the petitioner, the violator, is entitled to the relief from the
equity court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
It is a settled principle of law that the illegality shall not be allowed to
perpetuate. The petitioner has been manufacturing the sweets without getting
the requisite permissions, as discussed supra. The contention of the learned
counsel is that the livelihood of the petitioner will be put to jeopardy if the
manufacturing unit closes, this court will not appreciate such a stance,
keeping in view the principle that equity shall not override the law, and in fact,
equity follows the law.
36. It is an established law that when there is a conflict between law and
equity, the law must prevail. The statutory provisions may cause hardship or
inconvenience to a particular party, but the Court must enforce it giving full
effect to the same. The Latin maxim “dura lex sed lex”, which means “the law
is hard, but it is the law” stands attracted. Equity can only supplement the law,
but it cannot supplant or override it. The legal position on this aspect is
discussed infra.
37. In Anurag Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand4, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held thus:
“16. Judicial discretion can be exercised by a court only
when there are two or more possible lawful solutions. In any
event, courts cannot give any direction contrary to the4
(2016) 9 SCC 426
Page 17 of 22statute or rules made thereunder in exercise of judicial
discretion. It will be useful to reproduce from Judicial
Discretion (1989) by Aharon Barak which is as follows:
“Discretion assumes the freedom to choose
among several lawful alternatives. Therefore,
discretion does not exist when there is but
one lawful option. In this situation, the Judge
is required to select that option and has no
freedom of choice. No discretion is involved
in the choice between a lawful act and an
unlawful act. The Judge must choose the
lawful act, and he is precluded from
choosing the unlawful act. Discretion, on the
other hand, assumes the lack of an
obligation to choose one particular possibility
among several.”
38. In Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa5, the Hon’ble Apex
Court observed as follows:
“What is administered in courts is justice according to law and
considerations of fair play and equity, however important they
may be, must yield to clear and express provisions of the law.”
39. In P.M. Latha vs. State of Kerala6, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed
as follows:
“13. Equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied
and interpreted equitably but equity cannot override written or
settled law.”
5
AIR 1963 SC 1633
6
[(2003) 3 SCC 541
Page 18 of 22
40. In Laxminarayan R. Bhattad vs. State of Maharashtra7, the Hon’ble
Apex Court observed as follows:
“73. It is now well settled that when there is a conflict between
law and equity the former shall prevail.”
41. In E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy8, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed
as follows:
“The rent legislation is normally intended for the benefit of the
tenants. At the same time, it is well settled that the benefits
conferred on the tenants through the relevant statutes can be
enjoyed only on the basis of strict compliance with the statutory
provisions. Equitable consideration has no place in such
matters.”
42. By applying the equity principle, if the petitioner is allowed to continue
manufacturing the sweets in the premises, noted supra, without a valid
permission from the competent authority, this Court, indeed, confers a
premium on a violator of the Statutes. Such a premium shall not be granted at
the cost of the health of the public. The petitioner, a businessman, cannot
claim any equity in this regard. Had the petitioner made any application, the
authority concerned would have considered the same. However, till recently,
as per the counsel for the petitioner, no such application was made. However,
if the petitioner makes such an application, the authority concerned may
consider the same strictly, as per the law. At the same time, till a permission is
granted, the petitioner shall not be allowed to manufacture the sweets.
7
[(2003) 5 SCC 413]
8
[(2003) 1 SCC 123]
Page 19 of 22
43. Of course, this Court is conscious that the petitioner cannot be
relegated to a stage worse than the stage when he approached the Court. In
the absence of any interim order by the Court, the authority would have seized
the premises or ought to have passed other restraint orders. But for the
interim order, the petitioner has been manufacturing sweets to date.
44. When the violations are writ large, the Court shall not allow the
violations to perpetuate. In the said circumstances, in the considered opinion
of this Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction, this Court
definitely directs the petitioner not to perpetuate the illegality by continuing the
manufacture of sweets.
45. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India9, the Apex Court held that the Court
cannot exercise discretion in such a manner that would perpetuate an
illegality. It was held:
“41. In M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu [(1999) 6
SCC 464] this Court observed that no consideration should be
shown to a builder or any other person where the construction is
unauthorised. Judicial discretion cannot be guided by
expediency. Courts are not free from statutory fetters. Justice is
to be rendered in accordance with law. Judicial discretion
wherever it is required to be exercised has to be in accordance
with law and set legal principles. Judicial review is permissible if
the impugned action is against law or in violation of the
prescribed procedure or is unreasonable, irrational or mala fide.
In para 73, this Court reiterated that in numerous decisions, it has
been held that no consideration should be shown to the builder or9
(2004) 6 SCC 588
Page 20 of 22any other person where construction is unauthorised. This dicta is
now almost bordering the rule of law. A discretion which
encourages illegality or perpetuates an illegality cannot be
exercised. In M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu
[(1999) 6 SCC 532 (connected order)] this Court declined to
come to the aid of a law-violator.”(emphasis is mine)
46. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is
disposed of, with the following directions:
i) The notices dated 31.01.2023 (Ex.P2) and 09.02.2023 (Ex.P3) are
hereby set aside.
ii) However, this order will not preclude the 5th respondent, Gram
Panchayat, from issuing a fresh notice pointing out the violations, if any,
enabling the petitioner to submit a proper explanation. In such a case, the
authority shall provide a reasonable time to submit an explanation.
iii) Keeping in view the doctrine that illegality shall not be perpetuated,
since the petitioner continues the manufacturing of sweets without permission,
the 5th respondent shall ensure that the petitioner shall not manufacture the
sweets without statutory permissions.
iv) Till the petitioner gets the licences or permissions, the petitioner shall
not manufacture the sweets in the premises located in the midst of other
residential houses, referred to supra.
v) If the petitioner makes an application before the appropriate authority,
the authority shall consider the same strictly as per the Law.
Page 21 of 22
vi) There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Date: 07.05.2026
SNI
Page 22 of 22
13
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 11074 OF 2023
Date: 07.05.2026
SNI
