IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20916 of 2007 Between: Burra Ramesh, S/o. Venkataiah, R/o. Ghanpur Village, Mulugu Mandal, Warangal Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Geeta Parisramika Sahakara Arthika Sankshema Samstha, rep. by it's Managing Director, O/o. D.No. 3-5-1089, Beside Deepak Cinema Theatre, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad-29. 2 The Circle Inspector, Prohibition & Excise Station, Mulugu, Warangal Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for Respondent No.2: AGP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in harassing the petitioner without following due process of law at the instance of respondent No.1, as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Heard Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. No counter affidavit is filed. The petitioner pleaded that he obtained the loan amount of Rs.22,000/- from respondent No.1, out of which, 50% was subsidy and the remaining amount is liable to be paid in instalments. The petitioner claimed that he already paid Rs.10,500/- to respondent No.1; that he received a demand notice on 31.08.2006, wherein he was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.34,597/- and that when the petitioner approached respondent No.1, he was informed that there was no subsidy component in the loan amount paid to the petitioner and he is liable to pay the entire loan amount. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is being called by respondent No.2 to the Excise Station once in every three or four days and making him to wait in the Station for non-payment of the loan amount and that respondent No.2 is not renewing the license of the petitioner’s society stating that unless he cleared the loan amount, he will not renew the same. In the absence of any counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 controverting the allegations made by the petitioner, it is reasonable to presume that the allegations made by the petitioner bear the truth. Respondent No.2 is, therefore, directed to not to harass the petitioner. If the petitioner owes money to respondent No.1, it shall be free to recover the same from the petitioner by following due process of law. Respondent No.2, in my considered opinion, cannot interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader stated that respondent No.2 stood as guarantor to the petitioner towards the loan sanctioned by respondent No.1. Even if the same is true, respondent No.2 is not entitled to act outside the purview of law. Respondent No.2 is entitled to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the petitioner for discharge of loan, if he so chooses. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.27123 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th MARCH, 2008 kvni