THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.3317 of 2010 Date: 27.04.2010 Between: Syed Najmuddin … Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.3317 of 2010 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner seeking production of his employees, viz., (1) Mr. Narasimha, s/o. Ramulu, aged 36 years; r/o. Atmakur, and (2) Mr. Chandraiah, s/o. Seshaiah, aged 36 years, r/o. Atmakur, both working as Security Guards, who were allegedly kidnapped, before this Court and set them at liberty. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the alleged detenus, who are working as Security Guards, were kidnapped and inspite of lodging complaint before the 3rd respondent-Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, on 11.11.2009 and 28.12.2009, no action has been taken by the respondents police. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent- Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, stating inter alia that no complaints were lodged by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent police about the alleged kidnap of the detenus. He also asserted that till date, neither the family members of the alleged detenus nor the security agency, where the alleged detenus are employed, have approached the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, to lodge any complaint about the alleged kidnap of the detenus. 5. In fact, on the earlier occasion i.e., on 6.4.2010, this Court directed the petitioner to be present with proper identity before this Court on 12.4.2010 and on which date the petitioner was not present. Even today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of his sending information about the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner did not choose to attend the Court and hence he expressed his inability to secure the presence of the petitioner before this Court. 6. The conduct of the petitioner in not obeying the orders of this Court, despite the information passed on by the learned counsel, is highly deprecable and this Court can also think of taking appropriate action against him. However, having regard to the nature of the case and the relief sought in the writ petition, we do not propose to proceed any further against the petitioner. 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, particularly in the light of the conduct of the petitioner, what is obvious is that the petitioner is not serious in prosecuting the case and he had unnecessarily consumed the valuable time of the Court. 8. Therefore, we dismiss the writ petition, at the stage of admission, with costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to be paid to the A.P. Police Welfare Fund. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 27.04.2010 Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.3317 of 2010 27.04.2010 (Msr)