IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 837 of 2003 BETWEEN: Jayant Singhi, S/o Kamal Singhi, R/o 508, Anjeni Towers, Balkampet, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Home Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, P.S. Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District. 3 M.D. Wahid, H.No. 11-3-362/1/1, Shabash Guda, Warasiguda, Hyderabad-16. ...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 respondent in calling the petitioner to PS Balanagar and detaining him for hours together and forcing him to pay Rs. 50,000/- to respondent No.3 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Art-21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent not to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioner except with due process of law and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.M.R.VELU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in calling him to the Police Station Balanagar and detaining him for hours together and forcing him to pay Rs.50,000/- to the third respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Counter has been filed denying all the allegations made against the official respondents stating that the police never called the petitioner to the police station and never harassed him in any manner. The second respondent never interfered with the life and liberty of the petitioner and never summoned him to the police station at the instance of the third respondent. There was no claim for money and there was no complaint or representation filed either by the petitioner or against the petitioner, therefore, the question of detaining him or forcing him to pay the amount does not arise. 3. In view of the aforesaid categorical denial of the all the allegations of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in a writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 16, 2008 DSK