IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3018 of 2010 Between: K. Pothu Raju … Petitioner And Union of India, rep., by its Ministry of Finance & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.V. Suresh Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri B. Mayur Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri Kuncham Maheswara Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3018 of 2010 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner’s day to day life for non-payment of instalments as well as the amounts due in connection with the purchase of vehicle No.AP 24 W 6089, as illegal and arbitrary I have heard Sri M.V. Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B. Mayur Reddy for respondent No.1 and Sri Kuncham Maheswara Rao for respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that respondent No.2, who advanced loan to him for purchase of the vehicle, has been indulging in unfair practice of coercing and threatening him in recovering the loan. At the hearing, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 neither represent the State nor it is its instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ is not maintainable against the respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 – Union of India has no role to play in the alleged harassment by respondent No.2. Obviously, Union of India is impleaded as a formal party to maintain the writ petition. As the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the public law remedy against respondent No.2, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioner is entitled to invoke common law remedies against respondent No.2. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.3962 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.04.2010 ES