IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24190 of 2007 Between: Simha Sanyasirao S/o.late Appalaswamy, D.No.5-138, Narellavalasa Colony, Bheemili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police (Rural) Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Inspector of Police, Bheemunipatnam P.S. Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Smt.Ramkumari Gowtham W/o.Ramesh Chandra Gowtham D.No.27-4-34, Main Road, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. JYOTHI PRASAD FOR MR.RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR. P. SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2, in interfering in civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.2 not to interfere in the civil dispute, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.342 of 2007 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam, in respect of Ac.0-23 cents of property in Survey No.32/9 of Nerella Valasa Village, Nidigattu Panchayat, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri P.Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for respondent No.3. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit shows that with respect to the above- mentioned property, there are disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3, and the same are subject matter of O.S.No.342 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam. The grievance of the petitioner is that, at the instance of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 is interfering in the civil dispute and seeking to dispossess him from the property in question. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, the above-mentioned allegation is denied. It is stated that the watchman of the petitioner and respondent No.3 have filed complaint and a counter complaint; that since respondent No.2 was satisfied that those complaints related to a dispute, which is purely civil in nature, he has not registered either of them and suggested the parties to get the dispute resolved in a competent civil Court. The learned Counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioner is seeking to encroach into the road, and hence, respondent No.3 filed a civil suit, which is pending. He denied the allegation that respondent No.3 is influencing respondent No.2 to interfere in civil disputes. Having regard to the above-mentioned averments contained in the affidavit and the submissions of the learned Counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 not to interfere in civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.31512 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 25-04-2008 LUR