IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2061 of 2009 Between: M/s. Padmavathi Metal Industry, rep.by is Partner, Mohd. Shabbir, S/o. M.A. Hafeez R/o. H.No.5-9-1049, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Shamshabad Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Yadaiah S/o. Late Kishtaiah R/o.1-8-22, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:NONE APPEARED Counsel for Respondent No.1:AGP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR. B.SESIBUSHAN RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to take action against respondent No.2 under Police Standing Order No.322-1. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri B.Sesibushan Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that respondent No.2 without any manner of right has been interfering with the quarry operations of the petitioner in respect of Acs.19.32 guntas of land in Survey No.78 of Kotwalguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, despite the fact that the lease was granted to it by the competent authority. The learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, submitted that respondent No.2 is concerned with the land of an extent of Acs.2.32 guntas, for which, an assignment was earlier made and was later cancelled, and that a writ petition filed by him questioning the said cancellation order was allowed and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for appropriate action. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegation that his client is unlawfully interfering with the quarry operations of the petitioner is incorrect. He, however, undertakes on behalf of his client that while respondent No.2 will not physically interfere with the quarry operations of the petitioner, he will prosecute his remedies available under law to protect his rights in respect of Acs.2.32 guntas of land in Survey No.78. The undertaking of the learned counsel given on behalf of respondent No.2 is placed on record. If respondent No.2 commits any offence in relation to the above-mentioned land in future, respondent No.1 shall take appropriate action against him in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.2610 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 5th JUNE, 2009. kvni