THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9569 OF 2009 Dated 14th September, 2009 Between: Kadamati Rama Krishna …Petitioner And The Station House Officer and others …Respondents The Court made the following O R D E R: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation as well as learned counsel for the third respondent. At their request, the writ petition itself is disposed of at the stage of admission. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the official respondents in interfering with his business as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is doing catering business in the name and style ‘Jayadwani Catering’ and running the same in the premises bearing Door No.44-12-9/2. The further case of the petitioner is that at the instance of his neighbourer i.e., respondent No.3, who is a retired RPF Constable, the official respondents are interfering with his business, without any authority of law and jurisdiction. Counter-affidavit is filed by the Commissioner of the second respondent, wherein he, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, stated that the petitioner is doing business in catering without obtaining trade licence and he is preparing food by cooking the same with firewood on the road and creating nuisance not only to the neighbourers but also to the passers by. With the same averments, the third respondent also filed a counter-affidavit stating that in view of the cooking of the petitioner on the road by using firewood, there is a lot of pollution, as such he complained to the second respondent. It appears that, when the third respondent approached the second respondent, on apprehension this writ petition is filed. Learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent submits that action will be taken, in accordance with law, after issuing notice as per the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act. In the absence of any notice and in view of the stand of the learned Standing Counsel, it cannot be said that as of now there is any interference by the official respondents with the business of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot seek any direction in anticipation of interference by the respondents, by filing this writ petition. At the same time, if any action is proposed to be taken by the second respondent, the same has to be taken only in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the official respondents not to interfere with the business of the petitioner. However, this order will not preclude them from taking action against the petitioner on the complaint of the third respondent or of any other person, on their grievance that the petitioner is causing pollution, in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 14th September, 2009 vrn