IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 18014 of 2004 Between: M.A.Arshad, S/o Late M.A.Raheem, R/o H.No.4-1-1073/1, Near Inspection Bunglow, Koratla, Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Police Station, Koratla, Karimnagar District 2 Pothani Ravi, S/o P.Bhumaiah, R/o M.G.Road Locality, Koratla, Karimnagar District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in calling the petitioner to Police Station and pressurizing him to execute the sale deed in favour of 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and without power and further direct the respondent No.1 not to interfere in the civil disputes and call the petitioner to police station in that regard. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.P.ACHARYA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.2: None appeared. The Court at the stage of admission made the following : ORDER: None appears for the petitioner. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.1 in calling the petitioner to police station and pressurizing him to execute a sale deed in favour of respondent No.2, as arbitrary and illegal; and to direct respondent No.1 not to interfere in civil disputes and not to call the petitioner to police station in that regard. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.1 denying the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The allegation that respondent No.1 at the behest of respondent No.2 is calling the petitioner to the police station on every alternate day and making him to sit in the police station and forcing him to execute a sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 is absolutely incorrect, baseless and hence denied. It is stated that respondent No.2 never approached respondent No.1, so the question of calling the petitioner to the police station does not arise. It is also stated that this is a dispute of purely civil in nature, and respondent No.1 never interfered with the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and never pressurized the petitioner to execute the sale deed. It is stated that on mere apprehension, the petitioner filed this writ petition. In view of the above averments in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 26-4-2005 Svv ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Station House Officer, Police Station, Koratla, Karimnagar District 2. Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for the Home, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (O.U.T.) 3. Two CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSR}