THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.7512 OF 2010 Dated 7th April, 2010 Between: Katta Venkata Ramappa …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C.Siva Sankar Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 2 and 3 in not acting on the complaints given by the petitioner against respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.3 not to interfere in civil disputes and with the life and personal liberty of the petitioner in connection with such civil disputes. I have heard Sri C.Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. In connection with the house belonging to the petitioner, there appears to be a dispute between him and respondent No.4. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 has been insisting on him to sell his house against his will. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner filed W.P. No.23384 of 2008 for a direction to the respondents to provide protection to the petitioner’s family from respondent No.4 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 29.10.2008 directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider petitioner’s representation dated 03.10.2008 and pass appropriate order. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the said representation was not disposed of and no action was taken thereon, the incumbent of respondent No.3, who newly joined the Dharmavaram Police Station, colluded with respondent No.4 and has been summoning the petitioner to the police station and forcing him to execute documents for sale of the property. The petitioner specifically averred that as he refused to oblige respondent No.3, he has been making him to attend police station everyday and sit there for hours together from 20.03.2010. This Court, time and again, has been expressing its displeasure over the conduct of the police in interfering with the civil disputes. Even in the absence of conclusive evidence against their interference, it is reasonable to presume that unless such interference is caused by the police, ordinarily a citizen would not go the extreme extent of invoking a constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India complaining against such interference. In the absence of evidence, it is not possible for this Court to record conclusive findings in this respect but at the same time, it is the duty of the superior officers to cause discrete enquires into the conduct of their subordinates whenever such complaints against them arise. Respondent No.2 is therefore directed to cause an enquiry to be held into the allegations made by the petitioner in this writ petition against respondent No.3 and if it is found that respondent No.3 has unduly interfered in the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and harassed the petitioner in that connection, appropriate departmental action should be initiated against him apart from ensuring that in future, the police would not interfere in such civil disputes. Respondent No.2 shall complete this process within a period of four (4) weeks and communicate the order to the petitioner immediately thereafter. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.9670 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 7th April, 2010 vrn