IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 15663 of 2004 Between: M/s. S.R.and Sons, Rep. by Proprietor Mr. S. Ramachandran, S/o. Singaradevar, 55 Years, R/o. D.No.26-4-1205, R and GT Colony, Hindupur, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Circle Inspector of Police, Hindupur I Town PS, Hindupur, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in interfering with the day to day business of the petitioner as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and further direct the respondent not to interfere with the business of petitioner running in the premises bearing No.26-4-1205, RPGT Colony, Penugonda Road, Hindupur in the name and style of M/s. SR and sons. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.G.KRISHNA MURTHY (Not present) Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR HOME The Court at the stage of admission made the following : ORDER: None appears for the petitioner. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondent. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent in interfering with the day to day business of the petitioner, as illegal, improper and unjust, and further to direct the respondent not to interfere with his business running in the premises bearing No.26-4-1205, RPGT Colony, Penugonda Road, Hindupur in the name and style of M/s. SR and Sons. The respondent filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The allegation that the respondent is interfering with the petitioner’s day to day business affairs and asking him to close down his business is not true. It is stated that so far no person has filed any complaint against the petitioner with regard to his business affairs, so the question of the respondent interfering with the business of the petitioner and asking him to close it down, does not arise. It is stated that no action as alleged in the writ petition has been taken by the respondent, and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. In view of the above averments in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 26-4-2005 Svv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Circle Inspector of Police, Hindupur I Town PS, Hindupur, Anantapur District. 2. Two Ccs., to the Government Pleader for Home, High Court Buildings, A.P., Hyderabad (OUT). 3. Two CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}