“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,” the court said on May 7.

Justice Subba Reddy Satti of the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the petitioner had not secured registration or a licence for manufacturing. (Image enhanced using AI)

‘Equity cannot override law’

• Equity can only supplement the law, but it cannot supplant or override it.
• The legal position on this aspect is discussed infra.
• By applying the equity principle, if the petitioner is allowed to continue manufacturing the sweets in the premises, 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.
• 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.
• 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 learned counsel contends 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.

Residents complained of smoke from sweet-making unit

The dispute traces back to complaints filed by residents of Gadala Street and Hospital Street in Ponduru village in December 2022, alleging that smoke from the sweet-making unit was causing nuisance and health concerns in the residential locality.

The petitioner had been using wood powder and corn waste as fuel for the ovens used in the manufacturing process.

According to the petitioner, he had obtained the required licence from the gram panchayat to run “Meenakshi Sweets Centre” and had installed a stack to minimise smoke emission.

He argued that the fuel used was cost-effective and that all precautionary measures had been taken to avoid inconvenience to the public.

Licence did not cover manufacturing unit

The gram panchayat and local residents argued that the licence relied upon by the petitioner related only to the retail sweet shop and not to the separate manufacturing unit where sweets were actually prepared.

The panchayat contended that no licence had been obtained for operating the “karkhana” (factory or manufacturing unit) inside a residential area.

During the proceedings, the Andhra Pradesh High Court noted discrepancies in the petitioner’s affidavits.

The original writ petition stated that the petitioner had rented premises from one individual to run the sweet shop.

A later affidavit filed in March 2026 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court disclosed that the manufacturing unit had in fact been operating for more than 10 years from premises leased from another person.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court remarked that the drafting of the earlier affidavit did not clearly disclose that the retail shop and manufacturing unit were separate entities.

Pollution control board advised switch to LPG

The Andhra Pradesh High Court also examined inspection reports submitted by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board after it was impleaded suo motu in the proceedings in December 2025.

The board’s inspection conducted on January 5, 2025, found that the unit was using wood powder and corn waste instead of cleaner fuels such as LPG and that slight smoke was being generated during operation.

The report noted that the unit functioned for two to three hours daily in the middle of a residential locality.

The pollution control board clarified that it does not issue permissions for sweet-making units, categorising them as commercial activities to be regulated by local authorities.

However, it advised the panchayat authorities to direct the petitioner to switch to LPG gas to reduce nuisance to nearby residents.

HC says statutory permissions mandatory

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the petitioner had failed to obtain mandatory permissions under Section 119 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules governing manufacturing activities within gram panchayat limits.

The court also observed that the petitioner had not secured registration or a licence under Section 31 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which governs food businesses engaged in manufacturing and processing.

“A plain reading of the section would indicate that, without getting a valid licence from the executive authority, the petitioner could not have converted the residential house into a manufacturing unit,” the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed.

Notices quashed for violating natural justice

The Andhra Pradesh High Court found fault with the manner in which the Panchayat issued the impugned notices.

Referring to Supreme Court rulings on principles of natural justice, the court held that a valid show-cause notice must clearly specify the statutory violations and the action proposed against the noticee.

The notices issued in January and February 2023 merely referred to the smoke nuisance and directed the closure or use of LPG without detailing the legal breaches allegedly committed by the petitioner.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside both notices on the ground that they failed to adequately disclose the alleged violations, depriving the petitioner of an effective opportunity to respond.