HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26749 of 2007 Dated 5th February, 2008 Between M. Shyam Kumar …Petitioner and The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, and, ors …Respondents. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26749 of 2007 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the second respondent in seizing the stock belonging to the petitioner and handing-over the same to the sixth respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and, consequently to direct the second respondent to pay the costs of Rs.4,00,000/- including interest at 12% per annum. The petitioner claims that he is a commission agent and doing business in food-grains. It is his case that he had purchased 775 bags of Bengal gram from the seventh respondent for a sum of Rs.9,40,000/- and, out of the said amount, he paid an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- to seventh respondent and paid an amount of Rs.5,85,000/ to the Andhra Pragati Grameena Bank towards discharge of the loan secured by the seventh respondent. It is stated that the said 775 bags of Bengal gram was loaded in two lorries bearing Nos. TN 30U. 7088 and KA.01C.4559 for transporting the same to Erode in Tamilandu. It is further submitted that when the said two lorries reached Vudumulapadu check post, Done, the second respondent intercepted the said lorries and seized the commodity along with lorries, illegally, at the intervention of the fifth respondent. It is further stated that though the petitioner is the owner of the entire commodity loaded in the said two lorries, but however, the respondent-police have handed over the said commodity loaded in one lorry to the petitioner and commodity loaded in another lorry to the sixth respondent, who had taken away the same. Precisely it is the case of the petitioner that the respondents- police had no authority to seize and handover the 400 bags of Bengal gram to the sixth respondent. At the stage of admission, this Court by order 14-12-2007 ordered notice before admission. The second respondent- Circle Inspector of Police, Dhone, filed counter affidavit. While generally denying the various allegations levelled by the petitioner, the third respondent specifically denied the allegation of the petitioner with regard to seizure of stock and handingover of the part of the stock to the sixth respondent. It is stated that on 2-8-2007, when the petitioner and sixth respondents were quarrelling with each other about the stock loaded in the lorries and when the same was brought to his notice by the patrolling constables, he advised orally to settle the issues among themselves with the seventh respondent, who sold the commodity. It is further stated that as per his advice, the petitioner and sixth respondent have settled their issues amicably on their own and taken away the lorries according to their settlement. It is further stated that on the ground that the seventh respondent was due to the petitioner and the petitioner abducted the seventh respondent to recover the same, a case in Crime No.89/2007 is registered for the alleged offences under Sections 448 and 365 r/w 34 IPC on the file of the Ullindakonda Police Station against the petitioner. Heard the learned Counsel, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Syed Shareef Ahemad, learned Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent. It is submitted by Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that earlier, there was a dispute between the sixth respondent and seventh respondent with regard to the same commodity, and the same was brought before the respondents-police for their interference. As such, it is submitted that the seizure itself is illegal and without any authority of law. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the report alleged to have been sent by the Inspector of Police, Kurnool town circle, to the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool and pointed out that the vehicles were stopped at Dhone, at the instance of one merchant, by name, Sri Chakrapani. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 that the said vehicles were not at all seized. It is submitted that when there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the sixth respondent, and, when the same was brought to the notice of the second respondent by the patrolling constables, the second respondent advised them to settle the issue amicably and accordingly they themselves settled and taken away the lorries on their own. It is submitted by Sri Syed Shareef Ahmad, learned Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent that no stock was handed over to the sixth respondent, and, when there was a dispute between one Sri Chakrapani and the petitioner, both settled the disputes on their own. With regard to seizure of the lorries, there is no material to support the same. More over, the respondents-police have specifically denied the seizure of lorries in the counter affidavit filed by them. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that when there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the sixth respondent and when the same was brought to the notice of the second respondent by the patrolling constables, he had merely advised them to settle the issues amicably. More over, it is stated that there was a dispute between the petitioner and Sri Chakrapani in respect of the earlier purchase with regard to the same commodity and all the parties have themselves settled the issues and shared the commodity. In the above factual ground, it cannot be said that there is illegal interference and seizure by the respondents-police. In any event, said Sri Chakrapani is not a party to the Writ Petition and in view of the factual disputes, which emerges for consideration, this Court cannot adjudicate the same in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------------------------------- JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY DATE: 5-2-2008. Msnr.