IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 10275 of 2003 Between: M/s Unitech Engineers, Rep., by its Proprietor, Smt.K.Uma Devi, R/o Plot No.80, Mangapuram colony, Moulali, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND State Bank of Hyderabad, Rep., by its Deputy General Manager, International Banking Division, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in threatening the petitioner with dire consequences and subsequently at the behest of the respondents 1 to 3 getting the petitioner signed a letter addressed to the 1st respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.NAGENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondenst: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents 1 to 3 are forcing her to sign certain letters without any reason whatsoever. 3. 3rd respondent filed a counter stating that he is discharging the official duty and he never asked the petitioner to go to the 4th respondent and sign certain documents and all the allegations made by the petitioner are incorrect and without any basis. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner voluntarily submitted a letter, dated 25-04-2003, before the bank, and the bank never requested the police to use force in their investigation. 4. 4th respondent also filed a counter stating that the police is nothing to do with the business transactions of the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3, and on the written complaint made by the bank officials to the 4th respondent on 15-04-2003, the petitioner’s husband was called in the last week of April, 2002 and as the petitioner’s husband showed the documents which go to show that the offence is purely civil in nature, both parties were advised to approach the appropriate forum for redressal and petitioner was never forced to sign any document and no papers were signed in the office of the 4th respondent. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that nothing survives in this Writ Petition as no case has been registered against the petitioner or her husband. 6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 05th March, 2008 Tsy To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ }