IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11202 of 2009 Between: M/s. Omexlife Care Pvt. ltd. Rep. by its C.M.D., A. Suresh, S/o. Sri Sri. Ganga Ram Regd. Off: # 3-6-295/2, 04-A, Pioneer Chambers, II Floor, Hyderguda, Hyderabad - 500 029, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary (Home), Govt. of A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, A.P. 2 The Director General of Police (A.P.) O/o. D.G.P. State Police H.Q., A.P., Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, A.P. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ANGURU.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents who are threatening the petitioner under the guise of one common confidential circular meant for the Economical offences believed to be issued by the respondents or alternatively not considering the lawful activities of the company which is engaged in the selling of insurance products through their field associates and not considering the prima facie facts is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.” After arguing the case for some time, Sri A.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner having realized that the affidavit filed in the writ petition is totally vague and bereft of any details whatsoever regarding the persons, who allegedly were trying to interfere with the petitioner’s business activities and the dates on which such interference was made, sought for permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition with all those details. The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as withdrawn, WPMP.No.14386 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th JUNE, 2009. kvni