IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No :24264 of 2010 Between: M/s Nagarjuna All Castes Sand & Ferry Boat Workers Labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd., Undavalli, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District, represented by its President L.Mangaiah. . .Petitioner And 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural, Guntur District and 4 others. .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 24264 of 2010 O R D E R: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. The petitioner has sought intervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that respondents 1 to 3, who are police oﬃcials, are visiting the sand Reach of the petitioner and are interfering with the conducting of quarry operations and transportation of sand. It is stated that the petitioner and its members have shown the valid lease licence and entitlement of the petitioner to conduct quarry operations as well as transportation of sand, but without passing any orders, respondents 1 to 3 have inspected the sand Reach and orally instructed them to regulate the quarry operations by restricting it to 3 hours in the morning session and 2 hours in the evening session. When this Court directed notice before admission, the 3rd respondent had ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit denying the allegation of interference by the police oﬃcials with the quarrying operations of the petitioner. It is stated that the respondents 1 to 3 never inspected the sand Reach and put any restrictions on the petitioner. Not satisﬁed with the counter-aﬃdavit of the 3rd respondent, this Court felt that it is necessary to have on record the counter-affidavits of other respondents as well. Now the 1st respondent has ﬁled his counter-aﬃdavit denying the averments of the writ petition. It is speciﬁcally stated in para-4 of the counter-aﬃdavit, which reads as under: “The respondents never visited the Undavalli Sand Reach nor directed the members of the petitioner and workers to regulate the sand quarry operations. It is also not correct to state that respondent No.1 accompanied by respondents 2 and 3, have once again inspected the Reach and orally instructed the petitioner to regulate the quarry operations by restricting it to 3 hours in the morning session and 2 hours in the evening session. I never inspected the Undavalli sand Reach along with respondents 2 and 3 nor instructed them to regulate the quarry operations restricting it to 3 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the evening. The respondents never used their power nor tried to stop the petitioner with oral instructions. The respondents never threatened to foist false cases and harassed the vehicle owners who are coming to the Reach so that the vehicle drivers and transporters will take care of regulating the working hours of the Reach on their own. I submit that no case whatsoever is registered against the petitioner nor vehicle owners and respondents 1 to 3 herein never interfered with the activities of the petitioner at any point of time. On mere apprehension the present writ petition is ﬁled probably with an ulterior motive to get some beneﬁt after the period of lease. The 4th respondent has also ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit reiterating the same stand taken by the 1st respondent. Since the primary allegation of the petitioner is denied by the respondents and they have categorically stated that they never visited the sand Reach and interfered with the right of the petitioner to conduct quarry operations and also in view of the aforesaid averments made in the counter-aﬃdavits of the respondents, no further orders are warranted in this writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR 24th November 2011 Gsn.