HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25631 of 2008 Date : 30.08.2011 Between : Ch. Kumaraswamy. …..Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Police Station Wardhannapet & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25631 of 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in harassing the petitioner by calling to the Police Station at the instance of respondent No.4, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is an agriculturist and owns agricultural lands in Katriyal villagellll of Wardhannapet Mandal in Warangal District. It is stated that he has purchased the Tractor bearing No.AP-36V- 3516 with Trailor No.AP-36V-3517 from its earlier owner by name K.Koteshwar Rao S/o.Satyam of Karepalli village, Khammam District, and that he is using the said Tractor for hire, by collecting hire charges. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that at the instance of respondent No.4, respondents 1 to 3 are calling him to the Police Station and are harassing him to recover certain amounts claimed by the 4th respondent. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Wardhannapet Police Station, has filed counter affidavit. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is specifically stated in the counter that the petitioner was never called to the Police Station and no Constable was sent to the petitioner. It is also stated that no complaint whatsoever was received or registered against the petitioner, including from respondent No.4, as such, the question of summoning the petitioner to the Police Station, will not arise. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 states that some financing was rendered to the petitioner, and as per the terms of agreement, he is entitled to recover certain amounts. Even as per the counter filed by the Police, there was no complaint against the petitioner. In the absence of any complaint, there appears no reason for apprehension of the petitioner. In any event, as it is stated that the petitioner is not required in connection with any crime and that he was not called to the Police Station and Constables were also not sent to him as alleged, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, placing on record such statement made in the counter. It is also made clear that if any recoveries are to be affected by the 4th respondent, he may pursue the remedies open under law. Subject to the above said observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th August 2011 ajr