IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9393 of 2008 Between: Valluri Venkata Satya Sai Ram … Petitioner AND State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9393 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in harassing the petitioner to disclose the whereabouts of his brother, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner. No instructions are reported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home despite taking time for this purpose. The petitioner is a Manager (Systems) working in Regional Office, State Bank of Hyderabad, Mahaboobnagar. His grievance is that on the ground that his elder brother, who is a contractor, is an accused in a criminal case, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been harassing him by sending Constables to his house and threatening him to disclose the whereabouts of his brother. He referred to an incident said to have taken place on 19.04.2008 at 1.30 p.m. when respondent No.4 called him on phone and demanded him to appear before him, and though the petitioner expressed his inability to attend the police station, since he is unable to bear the harassment being meted out to him for the last four years, respondent No.4 has not been relenting. He further submitted that his sister-in- law earlier filed W.P.No.5701 of 2004 in this Court and that the said writ petition was allowed on 22.07.2004 with a direction to respondent No.4 not to interfere with the life and personal liberty of the petitioner’s sister-in-law. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is not an accused in any criminal case, he is being harassed by the respondents. Having regard to the abovementioned allegations, which are not controverted by the respondents, it is reasonable to presume that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are unduly interfering with the life and personal liberty of the petitioner. Hence, they are restrained from doing so, unless the petitioner is found involved in a criminal case in which event they are permitted to investigate into such crime and interfere with his personal liberty to the extent necessary in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.12400 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.05.2008 ES