IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2475 of 2009 Between: Faiyaz A Tumbi S/o. Hazi Abdullah Tumbi R/o. H.No.8-1-398/PM/208, Paramount Hills, Tolichowki, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, having office at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, Banjarahills Police Station, Hyderabad. 3 M. Srinivasa Reddy S/o. Late Narayana Reddy R/o.A-2/5, MLA's Quarters, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the officials of the 1st and 2nd respondents in trying to settle the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in the police station is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, ultra-virus and violating the fundamental rights of the petitionr and consequently direct the respondents not to summon or call the petitioner to the police station, not to pressurize the petitioner to re-pay the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to the 3rd respondent issued under cheque bearing No.530526, without there being any Court Decree against the petitioner, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHD.MOIN AHMED QUADRI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner’s case is that there are some civil disputes between him and the 3rd respondent with regard to the sale of property i.e. house bearing M.C.No.1-65/9 & 1-65/10 (Old) New No.1-98/71 in Sy. No. 63 part admeasuring Ac.2.00 guntas of land situated at Guttala Begumpet, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and payment of sale consideration, and it is his grievance that the 1st and 2nd respondents, at the instance of the 3rd respondent, are often calling the petitioner to the Police Station and insisting him to settle the dispute with the 3rd respondent, by making payment of Rs.25,00,000/-, which according to the petitioner, is illegal and unconstitutional. The learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, on instructions, submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not interfering with the alleged civil disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and they are not taking any coercive steps nor had they posed any threat to the life of the petitioner, much less to settle the alleged civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. In view of the specific denials made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, no orders need be passed in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 12th March, 2009 bcj