IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7786 of 2008 Between: 1 M.A. Muqeem, S/o. Late M.A. Kareem, R/o. H.No. 5-3-96, Opp : Bus Depot, Koratla Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. 2 M.A. Shoukath Ali, S/o. Late Mohd. Ali, R/o. Kagzipura Street, Koratla Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Station House Officer, Koratla Police Station, Koratla, Karimnagar District. 2 Pothani Ravi Kumar, S/o. Bhumaiah, R/o. H.No. 3-6-46, Ailapur Darwaza, Koratla Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. 3 Sudala Laxmipathi, S/o. A. Ashalu, R/o. H.No. 1-4-209, Muthyalawada Street, Koratla Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. 4 Jakani Vishvamabar, S/o. Dharma Rajam, Owner of REX Tails, Main Road, Koratla Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.T.P.ACHARYA Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 not to interfere with the personal liberty of the petitioners by calling them to the Police Station, making them to sit for long hours and forcing them to settle the civil dispute with the threat of registration of a criminal case, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri T.P.Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioners claimed to have entered into a sale transaction with respondent No.2; that the latter developed the land into plots and sold to third parties and that in connection with the sale transaction between them and respondent No.2, differences arose between them. The petitioners alleged that at the instance of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 has been harassing them by interfering with their personal liberty. They further alleged that during the last two weeks, respondent No.1 is calling the petitioners to the Police Station, making them to sit for hours together and coercing them to settle the civil dispute. In the light of the allegations made by the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 not to interfere with the property disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 4 and also with the personal liberty of the petitioners without following due process of law. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.10253 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th APRIL, 2008 kvni