HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.9906 of 2010 DATED: 23.01.2014 Between:
Chinnam Gangadhar ... Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Kamareddy PS, Kamareddy & others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.9906 of 2010 ORDER:
The petitioner is a manufacturer of beedies under the emblem “Devi Special Beedies”. His business was registered with the Excise Department under Licence No.CER.60/93. It appears that he suspended his business during the year 2008-09 and thereafter, he continued his business under the name and style of ‘Bhavani Beedi Works’ by obtaining a fresh licence from the Excise Department on 13.02.2009. But the earlier emblem remains. He applied for registration of trade mark under No.1836687 and 1836688 with the Registrar of Trademark, Chennai. During the year 1993, he noticed that the said emblem was used by his younger brother’s daughter Kum. Chinnam Swathi and she was doing the same beedi manufacturing business under the name and style of “New Devi Beedi Company”. In those circumstances, he filed OS No.16 of 2009 against her on the file of the Additional District Judge, Kamareddy, seeking permanent injunction restraining her from passing off her beedies under the name and style of “New Devi Special Beedi Company” using the same emblem. When the said suit is pending, the first respondent sent a constable asking the petitioner to appear before him along with the labels used by him and he attended Kamareddi PS, along with the labels. The first respondent stated that he was duplicating the labels used by others for hand made beedies and warned him not to use the labels. He submitted that he filed OS No.16 of 2009 and the same is pending consideration before the competent civil Court. Again he was called in the 3rd week of March 2010 by the first respondent to attend the PS and in those circumstances, he filed the present writ petition against the action of the first respondent in calling him to the Police Station repeatedly.
2. The first respondent filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stated that the dispute of the petitioner is civil in nature and the first respondent has nothing to do with it. In the counter, first respondent also states that he never summoned the petitioner to the police station nor has taken any undertaking from him and the present writ petition was filed as a pre- emption measure to prevent the police from taking any action, if any one lodges complaint against him in the business activities.
3. Having heard the learned the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of in view of the averments made by the first respondent that they are not interfering with the business activity of the petitioner. The first respondent shall not interfere with the dispute concerning between the petitioner and the defendant in OS No.16 of 2009, as it is a civil in nature. It is open to the first respondent to take action against the petitioner, in case of any criminal activity or criminal complaint is lodged against the petitioner.
4. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 23.01.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 5 WRIT PETITION No.9906 of 2010 Date: 23.01.2014 BSS