IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10040 of 2009 Between: B. Vincent, S/o. Sri B. Prakash Rao, R/o. Flat No. 203, Ahalya Enclave, Street No. 12, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-29. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Ganpath Jadhav, Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District. 2 V. Ranga Rao (D.S.P) Sub Divisional Police Officer, Karimnagar Town, Karimnagar District. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. 4 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Director General of Police, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RAMESH AND MR.K.NEELAKANTESWARA RAO, for MR.S.R.SANKU & KAVITI MURLI KRISNA Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for a Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2, in taking away the keys of Kalaprakash Lodge situated in second floor of Kalaprakash Complex at Mukrampura, Karimnagar, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner alleged that there is a civil dispute between him and his sisters and brothers in O.S.No.508 of 2009, which is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; that on the petitioner’s adversaries in the said suit approaching respondent No.2-Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Karimnagar Town, the latter summoned the petitioner’s employees viz., V.Ramakrishna, and Mahesh, took away the keys of the above-said Lodge from them, and handed over them to the defendants in the said suit. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. After filing of this Writ Petition, respondent No.3- Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar District, got an enquiry made into the petitioner’s complaint against respondent No.2. The report, dated 04-06-2009, of the Additional Superintendent of Police (Administration), Karimnagar, received by respondent No.3 was placed before the Court along with the counter-affidavit of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3, in his counter- affidavit, failed to mention the fact that respondent No.2 handed over the keys of the Kalaprakash Lodge to the petitioner’s adversary viz., Kusuma Prakash Rao on 03-05- 2009 by taking them from the petitioner’s employees. But this fact is clearly stated in the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Administration. This Court, having noticed the same, adjourned the case at the request of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home to explain the said lapse by respondent No.3. Accordingly, respondent No.3 filed an additional counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that respondent No.2, without authority, caused enquiries and upon coming to a conclusion that the lodge was in possession of Ms.Kusuma Prakash Rao and that the petitioner’s claim is not correct, handed over the keys to Ms.Kusuma Prakash Rao on 03-05-2009. It is further stated that respondent No.1 interfered in civil disputes, which were uncalled for. He stated that he issued memo, dated 24-06-2009, to respondent Nos.1 and 2, warning them to refrain from interfering in civil disputes. He admitted his mistake in not mentioning the above facts in the previous counter-affidavit. Having considered the said additional counter- affidavit of respondent No.3, this Court passed an interim order on 25-06-2009 observing that the misconduct of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in interfering with civil disputes cannot be washed away with simple memos, and accordingly, adjourned the Writ Petition by two weeks to initiate appropriate action against respondent Nos.1 and 2 with a direction to respondent No.3 to file a report on the said aspect and also as to whether any corrective measures were taken to restore the keys to the petitioner which were forcibly taken away by respondent No.2 from the petitioner’s employees and handed over to the petitioner’s rival party in the suit. Today, at the hearing, respondent No.3 filed a report wherein he stated that he initiated disciplinary action against respondent No.1, by issuing article of charge, dated 26-06-2009, and Deputy Inspector General, Karimnagar, initiated similar disciplinary action against respondent No.2, by issuing article of charge, dated 27-06-2009, and that the keys were recovered from the petitioner’s rival party in the suit and handed over to the petitioner, who re-occupied the second floor of Kalaprakash Lodge situated in the second floor of Kalaprakash Complex after filing of the Writ Petition and that the keys are with him only. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the above fact. The facts of this case clearly reveal that this is one of several instances of Police interference in civil disputes. Since the disciplinary action against respondent Nos.1 and 2 is now pending, this Court refrains from dealing with this aspect further. Respondent No.3 shall ensure that the disciplinary action initiated against respondent Nos.1 and 2 is concluded at the earliest possible time. Respondent No.4-Director General of Police, Hyderabad, is directed to bestow his attention to complaints of this nature, where the undue interference of Police in civil disputes is creating unrest in the Society and the instances are increasing with each passing day. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.12985, 14897 and 16238 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 13th July, 2009 lur