IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.10766 of 2009 Between: T. Vijay Kumar & others. … Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri P. Giri Krishna Counsel for respondents 1to3: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10766 of 2009 ORDER:- The petitioners, who are goldsmiths, have filed this writ petition complaining of their harassment and interference with their profession by respondent No.3, who is impleaded as respondent No.4 in his personal capacity. The serious accusations made by the petitioners against respondent Nos.3 and 4 are specifically denied in the counter- affidavit filed by respondent No.3. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the counter-affidavit hereunder: “At the outset it is respectfully submitted that the respondent No.3 never called the petitioners to the police station and harassed them to give 15 tulas of pure biscuit gold. The allegations to this effect are not true. It is incorrect to say that on 30.05.2009 at about 1.00 p.m. or on any other date the 3rd respondent sent the police personal to the shop of the petitioners and took away the 3rd petitioner to the police station and asked him to call his father and demanded 15 tulas of gold. It is also incorrect to say that the 3rd respondent has abused him in filthy language and asked him to sit up to 8.00 p.m., and tortured physically and mentally. It is also incorrect to say that the 3rd respondent warned the petitioner to bring the gold by 2.00 p.m., on 31.05.2009. It is also incorrect to say that since 31.05.2009 the respondent No.3 is telephoning the petitioner to bring the gold. I submit that the allegations to this effect are not true and the same are denied. The allegations in para No.8 of the affidavit are not true. The petitioner has made sweeping against the police without any substance. There is no complaint against the petitioner as on today and hence he is not required by the police as on today.” In view of the unequivocal stand taken by respondent No.3 that he is neither interfering with the business, life and personal liberty of the petitioners nor the petitioners are required in connection with any criminal case in the absence of any complaint filed against them, the writ petition is disposed of by placing the contents of the counter-affidavit on record. Liberty is given to the petitioners to seek revival of this writ petition, if respondent No.3 unduly interferes with their business, life and personal liberty in future. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.13830 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.06.2009 ES