IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13042 of 2009 Between: J. Arun Kumar S/o. N. P. Jaya Thilakam R/o. BN-210, Balaram Nagar, Safilguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh,. Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secreetariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Police Andhra Pradesh, at Lakdikapool , Hyderabad. 3 S.V. Ramana Murthy Additional Director General of Police (Coordination) O/o. The Director General of Police Andhra Pradesh, at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 4 G. Madhusudhan Rao S/o.Not known to petitioner, R/o. 502, Upahaar, 5 J.P. Road, 7 Bunglows, Andheri, Mumbai. 5 Divya Rao D/o. G. Madhusudhan Rao R/o. 502, Upahaar, 5 J.P. Road, 7 Bunglows, Andheri, Mumbai. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.UGRANARASIMHA Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for respondent No.3:MR V.PATTABHI The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in purportedly interfering with the life and personal liberty of the petitioner and forcing the petitioner to cohabit with respondent No.5 as illegal and arbitrary. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that he is working as Assistant Manager with Airtel Company. He married respondent No.5 on 18.10.2008; his marriage was not consummated and that respondent No.5 left his company and she is living with her father at Mumbai. The petitioner further averred that respondent No.3, who is a Senior Police Officer, has been consistently pressurizing and threatening him to cohabit with respondent No.5. He alleged that on 23.06.2009, he was summoned by respondent No.3 to his Office at Hyderabad and made him to sit there for more than three hours. He also alleged that respondent No.3 has been making frequent calls to his mobile No.9848048558 and has been repeatedly threatening him and called up his immediate superior officer Mr. Raghunandan over phone to bring pressure on him to settle the issue. In response to the notice of this Court, respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he specifically denied the above allegations made by the petitioner. Respondent No.3 stated that he never made personal calls on his mobile to the petitioner. He averred that respondent No.4 gave complaint dated 12.05.2009 to the Director General of Police Andhra Pradesh, marking copy to the Additional Director General of Police (Coordination), Hyderabad, wherein respondent No.4 alleged that the petitioner, who is his son-in-law, had been harassing respondent No.5 who is his daughter. He stated that as Additional Director General of Police (Coordination), he was entrusted with the subjects relating to crime matters and complaints relating to public grievances in the State of Andhra Pradesh and as such, it is part of his job to look into the grievances and complaints of members of public and that in discharge of his official duty and acting in good faith, he was involved in the matter with a view to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5. He stated that in this regard, he contacted Mr. Sharlin, Chief Executive Officer of Airtel, Hyderabad, and explained to him about the disputes and that the latter advised one of his subordinate officers Sri Raghunandan to contact him over phone. Respondent No.3 further stated that while he never summoned the petitioner to his office, the petitioner himself came along with Sri Raghunandan on 23.06.2009. On 14.07.2009, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested for adjournment to file relevant material to support his plea that respondent No.3 had directly called the petitioner on his mobile on several occasions. Today, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is unable to file evidence in support of the said allegation. Though the petitioner made serious allegations against respondent No.3, he failed to produce any material in support thereof. The material filed by respondent No.3 shows that it is part of duty of IGP (Coordination) (redesignated as Additional DGP (Coordination)) to receive petitions, representations and references from the public, Government, Courts and National Human Rights Commission etc. In the absence of any material produced by the petitioner, it is reasonable to presume that as a part of his official duty, respondent No.3 sought to intervene in the disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the effort of respondent No.3 having become futile, he is no longer interested in the disputes. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to accept the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.3 has unduly interfered in the matrimonial disputes between him and respondent No.5. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.16882 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 24th July, 2009 vrn