HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.991 of 2008 Dated: 01-02-2008 Between: Thulabandula Subbaiah & others. … Petitioners And The Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.991 of 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners seek directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 6 to 8 in interfering with their personal life and liberty basing on a publication made in Eenadu City Edition of Prakasam District on 19th of January 2008, as illegal. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that acting as General Power of Attorney holders of different persons, petitioners 1 and 2 have sold certain lands in favour of respondent No.9 M/s.Sagar Cements Ltd., and that petitioner No.3 has mediated the said transactions. It is submitted that there was a news item published in the Eenadu City Edition of Prakasam District on 19th of January 2008 under the caption “Land Scam”, in which, it is stated that certain land owners have complained to the effect that their lands were sold without their knowledge. The only grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition is that even without there being any complaint against them by any one, they are being harassed by respondents 6, 7 and 8, and questioning such harassment, this writ petition is filed. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.7- Inspector of Police. In the counter affidavit, while generally denying all the allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that on 20th of January 2008, respondents 7 and 8 were attending the VIP bandobust duty at Chandrasekharapuram village from morning to evening. The allegation that they have harassed the petitioners on the above said date is categorically denied. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that filing of this writ petition with baseless allegations against the respondents-Police, is the designed attempt on the part of petitioners to avoid action being taken against them if any complaint is lodged against them. 4. In view of the specific denial of the allegations regarding alleged interference by respondents 6 to 8, it is not necessary to examine any other issue raised in the writ petition, which is accordingly closed. But however, it is made clear that if any complaint is filed against the petitioners, it is open for the respondents to take steps and proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 5. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is closed. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st February 2008 ajr