IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3715 of 2010 Between: Gajmankar Narsoji Paul … Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T. Balaswamy Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri P.N.A. Christian This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3715 of 2010 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and harassing the petitioner by summoning him to the police station as illegal and arbitrary. As in case of many churches, the church, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, is also subjected to serious litigation over its management between two groups. It appears while the petitioner is leading one group, respondent No.4 is his adversary and both are making their respective claims over the management of the church in question. In this background, the petitioner filed the present writ petition with the allegation that at the instance of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 is causing undue interference with his right to offer prayers in the church. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that in connection with the complaint made by respondent No.4, respondent No.3 caused enquiries into the same and addressed a letter to the Tahsildar to take appropriate steps for prevention of breach of peace. She further submitted that except to the above extent, respondent No.3 has never interfered with the petitioner’s activities. Sri P.N.A. Christian, learned counsel for respondent No.4, who was impleaded on the directions of this Court, submitted that the petitioner has misused order dated 25.02.2010 passed by this Court by driving his client and other worshipers from the church, removing the sign boards and putting up his own boards to show as if he is in management. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has nothing to do with the management of the church and that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, is holding an enquiry into the disputes. From the pleadings in the affidavit, it is evident that the scope of this writ petition is confined to the alleged interference by respondent No.3. With the impleadment of respondent No.4, the disputes over management have come to fore. In view of the limited scope of the writ petition, it is neither necessary nor possible for this Court to pronounce upon the respective claims of the parties regarding the right over the management of the church in question. If an enquiry is pending with the Revenue Divisional Officer, the parties are entitled to participate therein and pursue the legal remedies available to them in respect of the management of the church. Inasmuch as respondent No.3 has instructed the learned Assistant Government Pleader to say that he is not interfering with the disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4, no specific direction need be given in the writ petition. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.4849 of 2010 and WVMP.No.1321 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.04.2010 ES Note:- Issue CC in one week. B/o. ES.