HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20644 of 2009 Dated: 17-06-2010 Between: Kechala Gopalakrishna. … Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Y.Ramavaram, East Godavari District & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20644 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner, a teacher working in Government Primary School, Peda Mallapuram, East Godavari District, seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in directing him to appear before the 2nd respondent-District Collector, on the complaint filed by the 4th respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. When the matter is taken up, the learned Government Pleader has produced the instructions received from the 1st respondent-Station House Officer, vide letter dated 29.09.2009, wherein, it is stated that the 4th respondent has filed a representation before the District Collector, East Godavari, stating that her husband i.e. the petitioner herein, was not taking care of her, and she sought to take necessary action in the matter. It appears, based on the said representation, a letter is addressed by the District Collector, East Godavari District, to the Station House Officer of Y.Ramavaram Police Station, to produce both the parties before him. Based on the same, the petitioner was asked to appear before the District Collector. The very instructions issued by the 2nd respondent appears to be ex facie illegal, and there is no authority or jurisdiction for the 2nd respondent to entertain such representation filed by the 4th respondent, so as to summon the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent. While issuing notice before admission, this Court, by an order, dated 24.09.2009, issued directions to respondents 1 to 3, not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner without following due process of law. In view of the instructions placed by the Station House Officer addressed to the learned Government Pleader vide letter, dated 29.09.2009, it is clear that the petitioner was called to appear, pursuant to the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent, which itself is issued without any authority of law and jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of, directing respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner. However, if the 4th respondent has any grievance against the petitioner, it is open for her to pursue the remedies available under law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th June 2010 ajr