IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 2719 of 2008 Between: Kommana Satya Prasad, S/o. Laxmana Rao, R/o. HIG 769, Kapvuda Layout, Vizianagaram, Vizinagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Dornala Police Station, Prakasam District. 2 The Motor Vehicle Inspector, Markapuram, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SUDARSHAN Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 2719 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the running of bus bearing No. AP 5V 4489 of the petitioner and calling him to respondent No.1 police station, as illegal. The petitioner also sought for declaration that the attempt of respondent No.2 to seize his bus is also illegal and without jurisdiction. Heard S. Sudharshan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner is the owner of bus bearing No.AP 5V 4489 and plying the same as a contract carriage. When the bus was proceeding to Sabarimalai on hire, it met with an accident on 18.12.2007 resulting in death of certain persons traveling in a Maxi Cab against which the bus got collided. In connection with the said accident, respondent No.1 registered crime No.87 of 2007 under Sections 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC read with Section 134 (a) and (b) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the driver of the bus is absconding, the police attached to respondent No.1 came to his house at Vizianagaram on 29.12.2007 and asked him to reveal the whereabouts of the absconding driver. The petitioner alleged that again on 24.01.2008 they came to his house. According to the petitioner, on both the occasions the police were shown proper accommodation and assistance to apprehend the driver, but they did not succeed in tracing the driver. The petitioner alleged that the respondents have been insisting on him to produce the driver with the threat that they will not permit him to run the bus, if he fails to do so. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dornala Police Station, Prakasam district filed a counter-affidavit in which it is mentioned that he registered a crime in connection with the accident involving the bus of the petitioner in which six passengers traveling in the Maxi Cab died on the spot and seven pilgrims sustained multiple injuries, that the driver of the vehicle is not yet traced and that efforts are being made to trace him. It is further averred that investigation is still pending for want of apprehension of the accused driver and that for the purpose of investigation, the respondent police enquired with the petitioner about the driver of the bus. He denied the allegation of harassment meted out to the petitioner. Except the Ipsi Dixit of the petitioner, he did not file any material to substantiate the allegation that the respondents are harassing him. If the petitioner is summoned in connection with the pending criminal case, the same does not constitute harassment. However, the respondents, in the guise of the investigation, cannot either force the petitioner to produce the absconding driver or harass him for not producing the driver. If in future the respondents mete out any harassment to the petitioner, he shall be free to approach this Court. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.3506 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.03.2008. ES To 1.2CCs 2.2CD copies