IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6192 of 2009 Between: 1 P. Anantharamulu S/o. Ramalingaiah R/o. H.No. 2-31, Nagiligonda Village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District. 2 R. Venkat Reddy S/o. Pulla Reddy R/o. H.No. 1-184, Pandillapalli Village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District. 3 S. Radhakrishna S/o. Veerabhadram R/o. H.No. 3-94, Nagolavancha Village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District. 4 R. Sampath S/o. Rama Rao R/o. Mathekapalli Village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District. 5 A. Veera Reddy S/o. Venkateshwar Reddy R/o. H.No. 1-04, Vandanam Village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District. 6 Ch. Narasimha Rao s/o. Seetharamulu R/o. Kodumuru Village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District. 7 B. Rama Rao S/o. Janardhan R/o. Patherlapad Village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District. 8 G. Anantharamulu S/o. Subbaiah R/o. H.No. 6-48, Nagulavancha Village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District. 9 Charugonda Ashok S/o. Krishna Rao R/o. H.No. 2-190, Proddutur Village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District. 10 M. Kondalu S/o. Adinarayana R/o. Ramakrishnapuram Village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Superintendent Of Police, Khammam, Khammam District. 2 The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Wyra, Khammam District. 3 The Circle Inspector of Police, Wyra, Khammam District. 4 The Station House Officer, Chintakani Police Station, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent police people herein in interfering with the day to day activities of the business of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and consequently direct the respondent police people not to interfere with day to day activities of the business of the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. Y.ASHOK RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: O R D E R:- The petitioners assert that they are merchants trading in Kirana and General items besides purchasing small quantities of liquor for personal consumption from nearby licenced shops which are well within the permissible limits as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.268, dated 01.04.2009, and it is their grievance that the respondents, without any competence or jurisdiction, are trying to interfere with their day to day business activities alleging that they have committed violations of the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Hence, they filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the respondents not to interfere with their business activities. The 4th respondent-Station House Officer has filed counter affidavit stating that on reliable information that the 8th petitioner is in possession of illicit IMFL Bottles of 15 quarter (old admiral deluxe – VSOP Brandy quarter bottles – 10 and Original choice deluxe malt whisky quarter bottles – 5) in a polythene cover for sale at cool drinks shop, Nagulavancha Centre, the respondent apprehended the 8th petitioner, who confessed to have committed the offence. Based on the confessional statement, the 4th respondent registered a suo mottu case in Cr.No.34 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and arrested him on 22.2.2009. He further stated that except the crime registered against the 8th petitioner, no case was registered against rest of the petitioners, and the respondent never interfered with the day-to-day affairs of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.268, dated 01.04.2009, the 8th petitioner is entitled to keep the quantity of liquor alleged to have been seized by the 4th respondent at his shop, for his consumption, and as such, the action of the respondents in seizing the liquor, and registration of crime, is illegal and arbitrary. In view of the specific averments made in the counter affidavit that except the registration of the crime against the 8th petitioner, no case is registered against any other petitioners nor have the respondents interfered with the day to day business activities of the petitioners, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition, and accordingly the same is closed. Insofar as the 8th petitioner is concerned, since a case is said to have been registered against him, and the investigation is still in progress and the case is pending before the Magistrate, he may take the defence of the maximum quantity of liquor which he is entitled to under G.O. Ms. No.268, dated 01.04.2009. With the above observations this writ petition is closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 21st April, 2009 bcj