HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26895 of 2010 Date : 21.01.2011 Between : Vysya Raju Govinda Raju. …..Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26895 of 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is filed, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.3 in harassing the petitioner by raiding his business premises, as illegal and arbitrary and is in contravention of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Vysya Community and is running a cloth and general merchant shop at main road near old bus stand at Narsannapet in Srikakulam District. It is the case of the petitioner that though he is not dealing in any substances covered under the Explosives Act of 1884, respondents are frequently visiting his business premises and are harassing him by calling to the Police Station. Based on the written instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that, at first instance, in the year 2004, when the house of the petitioner was raided, it was found that he was carrying on illicit business in explosive substances. Therefore, a crime was registered in Crime No.121/2004 for the offence under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 and under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. It is stated that after completion of investigation, final report was filed in the said case, and that the petitioner was acquitted on 17.09.2008. Further, it is stated that even on 13.10.2009, again, when the petitioner was dealing in explosives unauthorisedly, a raid was conducted and a case was registered in Crime No.149/2010 and a final report was also filed before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsannapet and the same is pending trial in C.C.No.3 of 2010. Respondents have denied the allegation of petitioner that they are harassing the petitioner by calling him to the Police Station. Although it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the substances dealt with by him are not covered under the provisions of the explosives Act, as much as the final report is already filed pursuant to the raid conducted on 13.10.2009 and the case is pending trial in C.C.No.3 of 2010 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsannapet, it is a matter for inquiry before the said Court. When a case is registered and investigation is made in view of explosive substances found in the business premises of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the respondents are harassing the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, placing on record the submission made by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents that the petitioner is not being called to the Police Station every day and is not being harassed. However, it is made clear that it is open to the respondents to take steps for completion of trial in C.C.No.3 of 2010 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsannapet. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st January 2011 ajr