APHC010561742024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 29444/2024 Between: 1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES, D.N0.7/42-A, WARD NO.7, BHAGYA NAGAR, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR TAMMINENE UDAYA KUMAR 2. TAMMINENE UDAYA KUMAR, S/O. T.NARASIMHUIU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. PROPRIETOR, M/S.USHODAYA ENTERPRISES D.N0.7/42-A,WARD NO.7, BHAGYA NAGAR, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELGAPUDI, AMRAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMRAVATHI. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, I TOWN POLICE STATION, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, II TOWN POLICE STATION, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT 6. SHAIK MOHAMMAD ARIF, S/O. KALANDHAR, AGE NOT KNOWN, PROPRIETOR, ROSHINI ENTERPRISES, D.NO.10/192, MANDY BAZAR ROAD, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPUR DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH-515801. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. E ANJANA REDDY 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondent No.5 in harassing, obstructing and interfering with the business operations of the petitioners on the instance of the respondent No.6 as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and also violating Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to harass, obstruct and interfere with the business operations of the petitioners.” 2. Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would submit that the Respondents – Police are not interfering in the business operations of the Petitioners. 3. Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, Respondents - Police are directed to follow due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:05.08.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.29444 of 2024 Dt.05.08.2025 Dinesh