IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26443 of 2006 Between: 1 Lt.Col.Dr.T.M.B.Nambiar, s/o late P.B.Menon, R/o 10-3-152-1A, St.Johns Road, Secunderabad. 2 Anita Rozario, w/o Rodney V.D.Rozario, R/o 10-3-152-1A, St.Johns Road, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 the Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Hyderabad Police, Hyderabad. 5 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gopalapuram Division, Hyderabad Police, Hyderabad. 6 Station House Officer, Police Station Marredpally, Hyderabad. 7 Station House Officer, Police Station Gopalapuram, Hyderabad. 8 Station House Officer, Police Station, Tukaramgate, Hyderabad. 9 Station House Officer, Police Station, Neredmet, Hyderabad. 10 Station House Officer, Police Station, Kharkhana, Hyderabad. 11 Mr.Randolph D.Rozario, r/o Flat No.507, Amarchand Sharma Apartments, S.P.Road, Secunderabad. .....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 respondents Nos.1 to 10 in not considering the representation of the petitioners dated 25-11- 2006 and in not initiating any action against illegal acts of the 11th respondent in interfering with the petitioners' constitutional and fundamental rights by subjecting the petitioners to threat and harassment as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and violative of petitioners' fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to forthwith initiate appropriate action against the 11th respondent and pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for Respondents 1 to 10: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.11: PARTY-IN-PERSON. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26443 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 10 in not considering the representation, dated 25.11.2006, purported to have been filed by the petitioners and in not initiating any action against illegal acts of respondent No.11 in interfering with the petitioners’ Constitutional and Fundamental Rights by subjecting the petitioners to threat and harassment, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It appears, the 2nd petitioner is the married daughter of the 1st petitioner and Respondent No.11 is the brother-in-law of the 2nd petitioner. They have some perennial disputes as to the property held by the late husband of the 2nd petitioner. In that connection, earlier, many complaints were lodged on either side before the concerned Police Stations. The petitioners have alleged various illegal actions purported to have been committed by respondent No.11. The present writ petition is filed complaining that respondents 1 to 10 are not initiating any action on the representation, dated 25.11.2006, submitted by the petitioners against respondent No.11. While admitting the writ petition on 05.01.2007, by order in W.P.M.P.No.33969 of 2006 this Court directed respondents 1 to 10 to provide protection to the petitioners and also to initiate appropriate action against respondent No.11 pending disposal of the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.11, he had denied all the allegations made by the petitioners against him and also stated that the allegations are made only for the purpose of this writ petition and to wreck vengeance in view of certain property disputes between him and the petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted across the bar that in view of the interim directions passed by this Court on 05.11.2007, a point book was maintained at the residence of the petitioners and the police are regularly visiting and signing the said point book. Respondent No.11 appeared in person and he has asserted that on the complaints made by the petitioners, various criminal cases were booked against him and all of them ended in acquittal and that now the petitioners are trying to make another effort by filing this writ petition. He also stated that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 05.01.2007, he was arrested. He further asserted that he never visited the house of the petitioners and threatened them at any point of time either with regard to the property in dispute or otherwise, therefore, there is no necessity of seeking any police protection or initiating action against him as per the representation dated 25.11.2006. He further contends that he has been shown as a rowdy sheeter. He is a retired Captain of the Indian Army and has great respect for the law. As the civil disputes filed by him are decreed in his favour and they attained finality, the petitioners are creating all sorts of problems and hurdles in his way. Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 10 has stated that as per the directions of this Court on 05.01.2007, police protection was given and action was initiated against respondent No.11 and the matter is pending before the criminal Court. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct respondents 1 to 10 to continue their vigil on the house of the petitioners and also continue signing in the Point Book, which is being maintained in view of the directions passed by this Court on 05.01.2007. Respondents 1 to 10 are further directed not to harass respondent No.11 and not to interfere into his personal life and liberty without following due process of law. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gopalpuram Police Station, Secunderabad, the 5th respondent, shall consider closing of the rowdy sheet, if any, opened against respondent No.11 and take appropriate action as per law. However, if respondent No.11 feels that he has been harassed either by the petitioners or respondents 1 to 10 without there being such requirement, he is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against them as available under law. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 11.12.2008 v v