IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 5403 of 2009 Between: Sunkara Lakshminarayana S/o. Bhima Shankara Rao R/o. D.No.6-2-26, Dusarlapudi Street, Near Nookalamma Temple, Kakinada, E.G.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Law & Order, III Town Police Station, Kakinada, E.G. District. 2 The Station House Officer, Law & Order, II Town Police Station, Kakinada, E.G. District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in summoning the petitioner to the police station and making him to sit for hours together without there being any complaint or case registered as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein not to summon the petitioner to the police station or in any manner interfere with the personal life and liberty. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.5403 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent-Station House Officer, Law & Order, II Town Police Station, Kakinada, in summoning the petitioner to the Police Station and making him to sit in the police station for hours together, without any complaint or case registered against him, as illegal and arbitrary. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit, whereunder, while denying the allegations made against them, it is stated that in Crime No.73 of 2006 on the file of III Town Police Station, Kakinda, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act, 1974, the petitioner was shown as one of the accused and he was imposed with fine of Rs.300/-. It is further stated that the petitioner is a habitual gambler by betting money and that, in order to curb and curtail his unlawful activities, a rowdy sheet is opened against him on 21.05.2007 and the same is being continued and renewed from time to time. It is specifically stated that even though the rowdy sheet is being continued against the petitioner, he did not change his attitude and again involved in Crime No.220 of 2007 on the file of I Town Police Station, Kakinada, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act, and in the said crime, the petitioner admitted his guilt and, therefore, the case against him was separated and he was convicted by way of imposing fine of Rs.300/-. At paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that it may be true that, at present, there are no cases pending or registered against the petitioner in any of the respondent police station, but the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner is being continued in the public interest, in view of the oral complaints received from the public that the petitioner is organizing gambling. Further, at paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the respondents never harassed the petitioner nor summoned him to the police station at any point of time as alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. Admittedly, the two criminal cases, which were registered against the petitioner, were already disposed of and, at present, no cases are pending against the petitioner. According to the respondents, though the rowdy sheet opened against the petitioner is being continued in the public interest, they never harassed the petitioner nor summoned him to the police station at any point of time. In view of such specific denial by the respondents, no orders need be passed in this writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, closed. No costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 07.04.2009 v v