IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.27745 of 2007 Between: G.Sitarama Sarma. … Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District and four others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.Balasubrahmanyam. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home for R.1 to R.3 Sri T.Pradyumnakumar Reddy for R.4 & R.5. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the highhanded action of respondents 1 and 2 in harassing the petitioner by interfering in the civil dispute between him and respondents 3 to 5, as illegal and unconstitutional. Heard Sri M.Balasubrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 and 2, and Sri T.Pradyumnakumar Reddy for respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner in his affidavit alleged that in connection with certain money dealings, disputes arose between him and respondent No.5. Respondents 3 and 4, who are the sons of respondent No.5, have been influencing respondent No.2 to fore the petitioner to pay certain amounts under promissory notes and that, in that connection, the petitioner was forcibly taken to III Town Police Station by the Constables attached to the said Police Station and made to sit him in the Station. The petitioner averred that respondent No.2 has no power or jurisdiction to interfere in a civil dispute between him and respondent No.5. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, he denied the allegation of the petitioner that at the instance of respondents 3 and 4 he is interfering in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5. It is also stated that as of now, no complaint has been received against the petitioner. At the hearing, Sri T.Pradyumnakumar Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 denied the allegation of his clients influencing respondent No.2 to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5. In the light of the categorical denial of interference in the civil disputes by respondents 2 to 5, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Liberty is given to the petitioner to avail his remedy in the event respondent No.2 meddles with the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5 in future. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 23-4-2008 MNR