The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.10141 of 2009 Dated 27th July, 2010 Between: Gudapati Srinivasa Rao and another. …Petitioners And The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr.G.Ramachandra Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.2: Mr.Kunche Maheswara Rao The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 and his subordinates, in helping and aiding respondent No.2 to seize the vehicles owned by the petitioners under hypothecation without following the due process of law, as illegal and unconstitutional. I have heard Sri G.Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent No.1 and Sri Kunchem Maheswara Rao, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioners have purchased commercial vehicles from respondent No.2 with the finances lent by respondent No.2 on the said vehicles and hypothecated the same to the said respondent. The petitioners committed default in repayment of loans to respondent No.2. For realisation of the said loans, respondent No.2 has, allegedly, approached respondent No.1, who, in turn, is alleged to be sending his subordinates to the petitioner’s premises to help respondent No.2 to seize several vehicles belonging to the petitioners and under hypothecation to respondent No.2. The petitioners pleaded that while respondent No.2 may be entitled to recover the loans and take the measures, which are available under law for this purpose, it cannot seek Police Aid for this purpose. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2- firm. In substance, respondent No.2 has mentioned in the counter that the petitioners are, admittedly, in default of huge loan amounts and therefore, it has been exercising its rights under the hypothecation agreements for recovery of loans. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.1. At the hearing, both the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 reiterated the pleas raised by their respective clients in their pleadings. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on instructions submitted that neither a case has been registered at the instance of respondent No.2 nor respondent No.1 or his subordinates have been helping respondent No.2 to seize the hypothecated vehicles from the possession of the petitioners. In the light of the above stand taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, it is not necessary for this Court to give any specific direction to the Police. It would suffice to observe that while the petitioners and respondent No.2 are entitled to get their dispute settled through legal process by approaching competent Fora, respondent No.1 or his subordinates cannot interfere in the civil disputes between the parties. However, if the Police are satisfied that any offence is committed by any of the parties, they are entitled to set the process under the Code of Criminal Procedure into motion strictly in accordance with the provisions thereof. Subject to the above observations, and without going into the merits of the respective claims of the petitioners and respondent No.2, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 28-05-2009, is vacated and WVMP No.2333 of 2010 in/& WPMP.No.13097 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 27th July, 2010 lur