THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10476 of 2010 Date:26.07.2010 Between: Anil Kumar Gupta. ..... Petitioner AND The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. Subba Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6: Sri Nadeem Ahmed for Sri Mahmood Ali. The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in interfering in civil disputes at the behest of the 5th and 6th respondents herein and threatening the petitioner and his men with dire consequences to vacate the premises No.8-2- 686/K/B/Plot No.1 situated in T.S.No.8, Block – K in Sy.No.129/48(old), new 334 Banjara Hills, Road No.12, Saikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District as illegal and arbitrary without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders…” At the hearing, Sri M. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the writ petition is filed mainly on the allegation that respondent No.4 was interfering in civil disputes between his client and respondent Nos.5 and 6 and as respondent No.4 has since been transferred from Banjara Hills Police Station to another Police Station, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. Sri Nadeem Ahmed, learned counsel representing Sri Mahmood Ali, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, submitted that the petitioner made certain false statements in the writ petition. As the petitioner is not intending to press the writ petition, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the allegations made by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to respondent Nos.5 and 6 to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner according to law, if they so choose. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.13431 of 2010 filed by the petitioner and W.P.M.P.No.16839 of 2010 filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th July, 2010 GHN