LawSphereX

M/s. Om Sri Sai Enterprises v. Union of India

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: E.V. VENUGOPAL

Judgment date:

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-02-21. M/s. Om Sri Sai Enterprises v. Union of India. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

[ 32se ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION NO: 18240 OF 2015 Between: 1. I\,4/s. Om Sri Sai Enterprises, Plot No 5-A/7, Road No. I, IDA Nacharam, Hyderabad - 500 076 RePresented by its tvlanaging Partner l\rlr. Surya Prakasa Rao Cheruku 2. Abbott Healthcare P\J,t. Ltd. ,4, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road Mumbai Represented by its Authorized Representative Mr. Sanatan Panigrahy ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary Ministry of Home and lnternal Security New Delhi 2. The State ofTelangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Home, Secretariat Buildings Hyderab ad 3- CB ClD, State of Telangana Represented by Additional Director General of Police Hyderabad 4. Crime lnvestigation Department, Hyderabad through its Senior Executive Officer 5.

Crime lnvestigation Deparlment, Narcotic Cell, Telangana State, Hyderabad Represented by its Dy. Superintendent of Police 6. The Deputy Director, Drugs Control Administration O/o Drugs Control Adminidtraiion Hyderabad, Telangana State Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad - 38 ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and more particularly' one (a) in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus- Calling for the records relating to FIR No. 1112015 dated June 8,2O15 registered against the Petitioners at CID Police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana State, under Sections 8(c) read with 21(c), 22 aod 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 468 and 471 of the IPC and quash the same (b) directing the Respondent Nos.

3 to 5 not to cause any arrest of any employees of the Petitioners and its execu tives/d irectors or to take any other coercive action against them or the Petitioners pursuant to FIR No 1112015 on the file of CID Police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana State. l. A. NO: 1 OF 201S(WPMP. NO: 23609 OF 2015) Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant ad-interim stay of all further proceedings including of stay of arrest of the employees of the Petitioners, its executives/d irectors in furtherance of the registration of FIR No. 1112015 dated June 8, 2015 registered against the Petitioners at CID Police Station, Telangana, Hyderabad under Sections 8(c) read with 21(c),22 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 468 and 471 of the lPC, and pending before the Court of the Hon'ble Vlth Add.

Chief Judicial [/etropolitan [Vagistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the writ petition. l. A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 1110 0F 2016) Between: The Deputy Director, Drugs Control Administration O/o Drugs Control Administration Hyderabad, Telangana State Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad - 38 ... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT AND 1 f\rlls. Om Sri Sai Enterprises, Plot No 5-A/7, Road No. 1, IDA Nacharam, Hyderabad - 500 076 Represented by rts Managing Partner lvlr. Surya Prakasa Rao Cheruku 2. Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. ,4, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road Mumbai Represented by its Authorized Representative [v1r. Sanatan Panigrahy ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 3. Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary lvlinistry of Home and lnternal Security New Delhr 4. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Home, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad 5. CB ClD, State of Telangana Represented by Additional Director General of Police Hyderabad 6.

Crime lnvestigation Department, Hyderabad through its Senior Executive Officer 7. Crime lnvestigation Department, Narcotic Cell, Telangana State, Hyderabad Represented by its Dy. Superintendent of Police .. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the inlerim orders made in W. P. M. P. No. 23609 of 20'1 5 in W. P. No. 18240 of 2O15 dated 14. 09. 2015 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 to 6: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER ,Z THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No. 18240 of 2015 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief/ s:- "...

to issue ar-r appropriate writ, order or direction anrl more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari: (a) Calling for the records relating to FIR No. 11/2015 dated June 8, 2O15 registered against the petitioners at CID Police Station, Hyderabad, 'lelangana State, under Sections 8(c) read with 2 1(c), 22 and 29 ot the NDPS Act and Sections 468 and 47 i of the IPC and quash the same; (b) directing lhe Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 not to cause any arrest of any employees of the pctitioners arld its execu tives / directors or to take any other coercive action against them or the petitioners pursuant to FIR No. 1I/2015 on the hle of CID Police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana State; and t (c) pass such other or further orders ... " I 2. Heard Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.

Yizarath Ali, learnecl Assistant Public Prosecutor representing learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 6. 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, by furnishing a copy of written instructions \\rould submit that the subject crime has been investigated upon and final report has been submitted before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, . the Hyderabad (for short, trial Court") as "action dropped,, against the Writ petitioners. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Writ Petition as inlructuous. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners concedes to the said request. 5. Recording the submissions made by both the learned counsel, the Writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/-V. KAVI ASSISTANT RE IS R //TRUE COPY/i SECTION OFFICER To 1 One CC to SRI N. NAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE High Court for the State oi Tetangana.

[OUT] 3 ONE CC tO SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIVAR, DY. SOLICITOR GE]NERAL OF rNDrA [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies BN GJP a F tu: I HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212024 >,- -/ \r'w:'t;\l -.. ''. ( ,l ;tt. { ')1 /,-i:, i. lj 2 7 t{A',i 2i2+ ,. ,t.. J -! ' ORDER WP. No. 18240 of 2015 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.