IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No. 19970 of 2008 Between: 1) Mohd.Hameeduddin S/o.Late Ahmeduddin, Aged about 72 years, Occupation: Retired Government Employee 2) Farzana Begum W/o.MOhd. Hameeduddin, Aged about 60 years, Occupation: Household Both R/o.H.No.19-4-558/A, Hashamabad, Hashamnagar, Jubail Colony, Falaknuma, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONERS AND 1) The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2) The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh Cross Road, Hyderabad 3) The Inspector of Police, Chandrayangutta Police Station, Chandrayangutta, Keshavagiri, Hyderabad. 4) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandrayangutta Police Station, Chandrayangutta, Keshavagiri, Hyderabad. 5) Smt.Ameena Begum, D/o. Mohd. Ghouse, Aged about 24 years, Occupation: Not known to petitioner, R/o.H.No.18-12-419/C/2066, Hafez Babanagar, Hyderabad. 6) Mohammed Majid S/o.Alauddin, Aged about 27 years, Occuapation: Lab Technicians, R/o.18-2-903, Chawni Gulam Murtuza, Kandikalgate, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd & 4th respondents viz., infringing and violating and depriving the petitioners, their family members and the members of the general public, from the enjoyment of their fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of The Constitution of India, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to direct the 1st & 2nd respondent to get appropriate criminal cases registered against the 3rd & 6th respondents and provide protection to the lives and liberty of the petitioners, their family members and the members of the general public to grant appropriate consequential directions to the 1st respondent to pay him a compensation, by imposing exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. S. MOHD. ABDULLAH KHAN Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: G.P. FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.5: NONE APPEARED Counsel for Respondent No.6: MR.MOHD. ZIA-UL-HAQ The Court made the following: J U D G M E N T : (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. This is a public interest litigation wherein a prayer has been made that action be taken against respondent Nos.3 to 6 for violating fundamental right to life of the petitioners and other members of public under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Upon perusal of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3 – Inspector of Police, it appears that the son of the petitioners is involved in certain criminal cases and for the purpose of investigation of those cases; the petitioners were asked certain questions so as to know the whereabouts of their son. 3. The petitioners have considered the above fact to be harassment and, therefore, by filing this public interest litigation, they are praying that some action be taken against respondent Nos.3 to 6. 4. Upon going through the record we do not find any public interest involved in the petition. The writ petition has been possibly filed so as to see that the son of the petitioners is somehow protected. 5. This Court cannot interfere with the investigation being made by respondent No.3 for an offence committed by the son of the petitioners and, therefore, the petition is rejected with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ December 08, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {KSRANI}