THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2100 of 2008 Date: 23.04.2008 Between: Vadde Bellam Srinivasulu … Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur district. And others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri P.Veera Reddy Counsel for the respondents : A.G.P. for Home HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2100 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents 1 and 5 in taking appropriate action on representation dated 17.9.2007 filed by the petitioner in connection with tracing of minor baby Srilaxmi, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1, 2 and 5 and Sri K.Maheshwar Rao, for respondents 3 and 4 and perused the record. From the pleadings of the case and the contentions advanced by the learned counsel at the hearing, it is evident that there is a dispute between the petitioner on the one side and respondents 2 and 3 on the other regarding custody of the baby girl of the petitioner. O.P.No.161 of 2007 filed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 by the petitioner in the District Court, Anantapur for custody of child is pending. I.A.No.481 of 2007 filed by him seeking interim custody of the child is also pending. The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that respondents 2 and 3 has stopped producing the child in the District Court, Anantapur where the O.P. is pending on several dates of hearing subsequent to 11.9.2007 and though a representation was made to respondent No.1 to take action for tracing the child and producing it in the court of District Judge, Anantapur, no action has been taken. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 it has been categorically stated that since, the baby is of tender age, in order to avoid causing of inconvenience to her in travelling, the child is not being produced in the Court. It is stated that they produced the baby on 4.7.2007 and 4.10.2007 on the specific directions issued by the civil Court. They have also stated that the child is in their care and custody and that they are ready to produce it before any forum if so directed. In the face of the above-mentioned categorical assertion of respondents 2 and 3, I do not find any justification for permitting the police to intervene in the dispute. The above-mentioned averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3 are taken on record. The petitioner shall be free to seek appropriate directions before the learned District Judge, Anantapur in the pending O.P.No.161 of 2007 for production of the child. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.2682 of 2008 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:23.04.2008 mdaa