IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 9457 of 2004 Between: Murali Menon Palot S/o. Kumaran Menon Palot M/s Winchester Tours and Travels YS Rao Chambers, Street No.12 Ashok Nagar,Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Station House Officer Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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, order or direction, one more in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondent and his subordinates not to harass him or threaten him with false implication in criminal cases, and not to interfere with his lawful and legal business activity except in accordance with law an to further direct that he have his lawyer with him in the event of his being further required for any investigation purpose and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.V.PATTABHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 9457 OF 2004 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed with the following prayer : “ ……….. to issue a Writ, order or direction, one more in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, directing the respondent and his subordinates not to harass the petitioner or threaten the petitioner with false implication in criminal cases, and not to interfere with petitioner’s lawful and legal business activity except in accordance with law, and to further direct that the petitioner have his lawyer with him in the event of his being further required for any investigation purpose and to pass such other order”. This Court while directing rule nisi, by order dated 01.06.2004 in W.P.M.P.No.12101 of 2004 granted interim direction to the respondent not to interfere with the functioning of the business of the petitioner except in accordance with law. Despite notice, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondent opposing the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent not to interfere with the petitioner’s business activity in any manner whatsoever, without following due process of law. No costs. ________________ G.ROHINI, J 17th FEBRUARY, 2009 SUR