IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 23063 of 2002 BETWEEN: T. Prakash Rao, S/o. Late T.V. Ranganayakulu, R/o.1-10-229, Kamsari Bazar, New Bowenapally, Secunderabad-11. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretariat, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-4. 2 Station House Officer, Bowenapally P.S., Secunderabad-11. 3 R. Bhim Raj, S/o. R. Gajananda Rao, R/o.1-10-144, Nutan Colony, Bowenapally, Secunderaba-11. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent-2 in interfering with the liberty of the petitioner and his family members without due process of law is illegal and unjust and violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent-2 not to interfere with the liberty of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.M.R.VELU Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The allegations made by the petitioner against the police officials with regard to their interference with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner and his family has been denied in the counter stating that the writ petition has been filed with an intention to obstruct the investigation in pending case in Cr.No.319 of 2002 on the file of the Bowenpally Police Station with regard to the missing of the wife of the third respondent. It is stated that the petitioner was previously the tenant of the third respondent. 2. It is stated that the police never interfered with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner but they are only investigating into the case of missing of the wife of the third respondent, with the petitioner, as the son of the petitioner also is found to be missing from the same day. 3. In view of the aforesaid averments made in the counter, I am of the opinion that nothing survives in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 2, 2008 DSK