IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3850 of 2009 Between: Meka Sree Rama Chandra Murthy @ China Babu S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Plot No.60, D.No.6-151/1, Madhuravada, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Circle Inspector of Police V Town Police Station Visakhapatnam. 3 The Sub Inspector of Police V Town Police Station Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Patchitala Suryanarayana @ Sundra Rao S/o. Kama Raju R/o. Dr.No.39-1-26/1, Singaraya Mitta, Near Sai Baba Temple, Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 herein in summoning the Petitioner to the Police Station at the instance of 4th Respondent herein without there being any crime pending against him as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents herein not to summon the Petitioner to the Police Station. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.3850 of 2009 Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of respondents 2 and 3 in summoning the petitioner to the police, at the instance of the fourth respondent, without there being any justifiable reason. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations made by the petitioner, and at para-5, it is categorically denied that respondents 2 and 3 neither summoned the petitioner to the police station nor asked him to settle the dispute with the fourth respondent. In view of the specific stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner, no further adjudication is necessary in this writ petition, at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 05.03.2009 VGB