IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 4173 of 2009 Between: Sai Balaji Builders, a Partnership Firm, Rep by its Managing Partner, Punnyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundra Rao, S/o. Venkata Kesava Krishna Rao, aged 56 years. Having its office at D.No.22C-14-9/3, Powerpet, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Prol. Secretary Home, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintend of Police, W.G.District, Eluru. 3 The S.H.O. Eluru-Town Police Station, Eluru, W.G.District. 4 Telidevara Vasudeva Rao, S/o. Late Narasimha Rao, R/o. Narasimha Rao Pet, Eluru, W.G.District. 5 Telidevara Satya Nagar Narasimha Pavan Kumar, S/o. Vasudeva Rao, R/o. Narasimha Rao Pet, Eluru, W.G.District. 6 Telidevara Siva Ratna Kumar, S/o. Vasudeva Rao, R/o. Narasimha Rao Pet, Eluru, W.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ or order direction declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with the personal life, liberty and privacy of the petitioners herein to settle the civil dispute between the petitioners and the respondents 4 to 6, at the behest of the respondents 4 to 6, is wholly illegal, high-handed and violative of Art.21 of Constitution of India and for a consequential order directing the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioners herein the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI C.S.N.RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.4173 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. According to the deponent, who claims to be the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm, the unofficial respondents i.e., respondents 4 to 6 being the owners of land admeasuring 714.44 sq. yards bearing Dr.No.25-11-29 situated in Narasimharaopeta of Eluru, West Godavari District, offered their land to the petitioner firm for development of the same by entering into Development Agreement under certain terms and conditions as stipulated thereunder, for which the petitioner firm deposited a signed blank cheque and promissory note with the unofficial respondents as security and the same is still retained with them. The ratio of sharing between the builder i.e, the petitioner firm and the unofficial respondents was 60 : 40, as per which, out of 25 flats to be constructed, 15 flats would fall to the share of the petitioner firm and 10 flats to the unofficial respondents. Thereafter, after getting approved the plan and also the building permit from the concerned authorities, the petitioner firm completed the entire constructions and sold all the 15 flats, which fell to its share, to prospective purchasers and thereafter, the unofficial respondents registered 10 flats, out of 15 flats fallen to the share of the petitioner firm. While so, the unofficial respondents, realizing that the petitioner firm has made good profits, reneged in performing their part of agreement and have abruptly stopped the registration process for the remaining 5 flats fell to the share of the petitioner firm. The grievance of the deponent is that the respondent police, at the behest of the respondents 4 to 6 in connection with the aforesaid dispute, which is civil in nature, harassing the petitioner firm to settle the said disputed claim between the petitioner firm and the unofficial respondents. Hence, this writ petition. The 3rd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the material allegations made against him are false. It is also stated that so far no case whatsoever is registered against the petitioner firm and that to prevent the police from taking any action against the petitioner firm in future, if any complaint is lodged against it, the petitioner firm approached this Court. In view of the aforesaid averments made by the 3rd respondent in his counter affidavit, no orders need be passed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 17.03.2009 v v