IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7336 of 2008 Between: K.Prem Kumar S/o.late K.Motilal, R/o.Bhoiguda Kaman,Aghapura Hyd ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner Of Police Bahseerbagh Hyd 2 The Dy.Commissioner of Police West Zone A.C Guards Hyd 3 The Inspector of Police Mangalhat Police Station Mangalhat Hyd 4 Sarla Devi W/o.K.Ashok Kumar R/o.11-1-612 Bhoiguda Kaman,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHD.QASIM Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to call the petitioner to the Police Station without following due process of law, at the behest of respondent No.4. In his affidavit, the petitioner claimed that he is a witness to the sale transaction in respect of a property purchased by respondent No.4. He alleged that a dispute arose between respondent No.4 and the vendor and at the instance of respondent No.4, respondent No.3 called the petitioner to the Police Station on 30.03.2008 and detained him for 24 hours before he was let off. He further alleged that on 01.04.2008, respondent No.3 sent two Police Constables, who misbehaved with the petitioner and his family members at his residence. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner sent telegrams to different authorities including respondent No.1, against his unlawful detention. In the recent past, this Court has been receiving a spate of writ petitions filed complaining of unlawful interference by the police, all over the State with the personal liberty and the property disputes of the citizens. In the considered opinion of this Court, if these complaints bear even a semblance of the truth, this conduct and attitude of the police personnel do not augur well for a society governed by rule of law. It is time for the persons at the helm of the affairs to see that the alleged excesses being perpetrated by the men in uniform are properly controlled. In this view of the matter, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the telegram issued by the petitioner and institute a proper enquiry into the conduct of respondent No.3. If it is found that the contents of the telegram are correct, he shall take appropriate action against respondent No.3 apart from ensuring that the police personnel under his control do not repeat such conduct in future. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.9648 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th APRIL, 2008 kvni