IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6160 of 2009 Between: 1 K. Raghupathi, S/o. Gaddaiah, R/O. H.NO. 1-56/4, Pammi Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District. 2 G. Adinarayana, S/o. Rangaiah R/o. 4-143/4, Banapuram Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Khammam, Khammam District. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Khammam, Khammam District. 3 The Circle Inspector of Police, Khammam Rural, Khammam District. 4 The Station House Officer, Modigonda Police Station, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent police people herein in interfering with the day to day activities of the business of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and consequently direct the respondent police people not to interfere with day to day activities of the business of the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.ASHOK RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioners assert that they are running Kirana shops in their respective villages. While so, they purchased about three to four bottles containing 750 ml each of Foreign/Indian liquor from the licensed liquor shops for their personal consumption, and that the quantity of liquor purchased by them is well within the permissible limits as per the G.O.Ms.No.268, dated 01.04.1997, but their grievance is that the official respondents, at the instance of some supporters of the ruling political party who are rivals to the petitioners, are harassing them and interfering with the business activities stating that they have violated the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The petitioners state that the official respondents-police have no competence or jurisdiction to exercise the powers under Section 5 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, which are vested in the excise authorities. The 4th respondent-Station House Officer filed counter affidavit stating that three suo motu cases were registered against some persons for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) (f) of the A.P. Excise Act on the allegation that they were transporting IMFL (180 ML) quarters in two milk cans, without any valid license for the purpose of sale in different vehicles, but no case has been registered against the petitioners so far. The petitioners, only on an apprehension that the respondents-police may also register cases against them and take action, have filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents. In view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the petitioners filed the present writ petition only on an apprehension that the respondent-police may register cases against them, no orders need be passed in the writ petition. However, the official respondents-police are directed not to interfere with the business activities of the petitioners. However, if the petitioners involved in the commission of any criminal offences, then the official respondents-police before taking any action to close down the shops of the petitioners, shall follow the due process of law. With the observations as above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 15th April, 2009 bcj