IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11747 of 2009 Between: 1 M/s. Laxmi Traders Rep. by its Prop. A.B.S. Abdul Rab, S/o. Ahmed Bin Ali, D.No. 3-90-1, Main Road, Mulug Ghanpur Village & Mandal, Warangal District. 2 M/s. Kalyani Traders Rep. by its Prop. A. Yadaiah, S/o. Sattaiah, D.No. 4-22, Mulug Village & Mandal, Warangal District. 3 Super Traders Rep. by its Prop. K. Sadanandam, S/o. Veeramallu, D.No. 6-19/1, Main Road, Mulug Village & Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Superintendent of Proh. & Excise Warangal Warangal District. 2 The Central Inspector of Proh. & Excise Mulug Warangal District. 3 The Station House Officer P.S. Mulug Mulug Mandal, Warangal District. 4 The Station House Officer P.S. Venkatapur Mulug Mandal, Warangal District. 5 The Station House Officer P.S. Mulug Ghanpur Mulug Mandal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.SATYANARAYANA PULLURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioners sought for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in harassing them by interfering with their business in black jaggery and alum, as illegal and violative of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Heard Sri P.Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record. The petitioners claim to be traders in black jaggery and alum. They averred that they are purchasing the said goods from wholesale dealers of Warangal, Nizamabad and other districts of Andhra Pradesh and that the respondents and their officials are coming to their place of business during the transit of black jaggery to the place of destination of their customers and seizing the same on the ground that it is useful for preparation of ID liquor. At the hearing, this Court specifically asked the learned Counsel for the petitioners to specify the Officials and the instances of their interference, for which, he submitted that no such details have been furnished in the case. The Writ petition with vague and generic allegations cannot be entertained by this Court, which exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in considering and disposing of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Nowhere in the affidavit, the petitioner gave specific instances of interception and seizure of black jaggery. Therefore, no blanket order can be passed by this Court on such vague and unsubstantiated averments. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.15116 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 17th June, 2009 LUR