IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2120 of 2009 Between: 1 SAI VIDEO GAMES, Rep by its Proprietor N.Konda Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, R/o. Prathipadu Village, Prathipadu Post and Mandal, Guntur District. 2 E.Venkata Krishna Reddy, S/o. Obul Reddy, R/o. 5-119, Prathipadu Post and Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Guntur, Guntur District, A.P., 2 The Station House Officer, Prathipadu Police Station, Prathipadu, Guntur District, A.P., .....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 MANAMUS by declaring the actions of the respondents in not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner Video Games Shop and not to prosecute for not possessing Licence to run the said Video Games shop under A.P. Gaming Act 1974 and issue consequential direct the respondents not to interfere and not to harass the petitioners premises to run the said video Games shop situated at Prathipadu Village, post and Mandal, Guntur District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SRINIVASULA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The main grievance of the petitioners is that though they are running their own shop in the name and style M/s.Sai Video Games in Prathipadu village, under valid licence, it is their case that the respondents-police, without any valid reasons, are interfering with their business, harassing and threatening them with dire consequences to close down the shop. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that the respondents have never interfered with the petitioners’ video game parlour nor threatened them to close down their shop and no complaint whatsoever against them has been received. In view of the specific denials made by the 2nd respondent in his counter affidavit and having regard to the stand taken by him that he has not interfered with the business of the petitioners, no orders need be passed in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 2nd March, 2009 bcj