IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8502 of 2009 Between: Mrs. Ahmad Rafatalnesa Asad Ali, W/o. Mr. Obaid K.H. Mashabek, R/o. 20, 4.194/6, Shah-Ali Banda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, South Zone Purana Haveli, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer, P.S. Hyderabad. 3 Taher Ali Khan, S/o. Mir Asad Ali Khan, R/o. H.No. 20-4-194/6, Ist Floor, Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting the petition to see her mother Viz. Fatima Begum @ Jani Begum, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law and also in violation of Article 14 and 21 of constitution of India; consequently, consider her representation made to the respondents dt. 28-1-2009 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.A.K.MUKHEED Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that her brother, who is the 3rd respondent, has wrongfully confined her mother to his house, and he is not allowing the petitioner, who came down to India from Sharjah, U.A.E., to see her mother. Then she made a complaint dated 28.1.2009 to the 1st respondent to take action against the 3rd respondent about his misdeeds, but her grievance is that the 1st respondent-Commissioner of Police, in collusion with the 3rd respondent, has not taken any action against the 3rd respondent, who is not allowing to see her mother. Hence, she filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, and keeping grudge against the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, under the influence of the official respondents, is not allowing the petitioner to see her mother and the official respondents have not initiated any action against the 3rd respondent for not allowing the petitioner to see her mother in spite of the complaint lodged by her. From a perusal of the averments made in the writ affidavit and the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent, and since the police have nothing to do with the civil disputes, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in not taking any action against the unofficial respondents.. Hence, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, if the 3rd respondent creates any untoward incident, which breaches the law and order problem, the petitioner may bring the same to the notice of the official respondents- police, and if the petitioner brings any such incidents to their notice, the official respondents-police shall take necessary action against the persons responsible for such law and order problems. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 23rd April, 2009 bcj