IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8920 of 2009 Between: K. Venkat Rama Rao & another. … Petitioners And Union of India, rep., by its Ministry of Finance & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.V. Suresh Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri K. Maheswara Rao Counsel for respondent No.3: Smt. Chintalapani Lakshmi Kumari This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8920 of 2009 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners’ day to day life for non-payment of instalments of the loan amounts received by them from respondent Nos.2 and 3 in connection with vehicle Nos.AP 35 P 6728, AP 37 V 8538, AP 16 TW 5739 and AP 16 TW 5899 as illegal and void. I have heard Sri M.V. Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. Maheswra Rao for respondent No.2 and Smt. Chintalapani Lakshmi Kumari for respondent No.3. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that respondent Nos.2 and 3, who advanced loans to them for purchase of vehicles, have been indulging in unfair practice of coercing and threatening them in recovering the loans. At the hearing, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent Nos.2 and 3 neither represent the State nor they are its instrumentalities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ is not maintainable against the said respondents. Respondent No.1 – Union of India has no role to play in the alleged harassment by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Obviously, Union of India is impleaded as a formal party to maintain the writ petition. As the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the public law remedy against respondent Nos.2 and 3, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioners are entitled to invoke common law remedies against respondent Nos.2 and 3. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.11677 and 11678 of 2009 and WVMP.No.2406 of 2009 are also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 09.04.2010 ES