IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12411 of 2008 Between: Smt.R.K.Bhagyalaxmi W/o.late Sri R.K.Gyan Prakash R/o.Inside Poorana Pool, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, P.S. Abids, Hyderabad. 2 Smt.R.K.Anupama W/o.lateSri. R.K.Om Prakash R/o.H.No.3-5-1069, II Floor, Ramnarayan Jaiswal Road, Near Keshava Memorial High school, Narayanaguda, 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 direction, writ or order essentially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to restrain the respondent No.2 or any person claiming right under respondent No.2 from causing nuisance or entering the premises bearing Shop No.10 ground floor M.C.H. parking complex situated at Abids, Hyderabad except in accordance with law and pass such other and further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VEERABHADRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: Writ Petition is misconceived. It seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to restrain the 2nd respondent from causing nuisance or entering the premises bearing Shop No.10, Ground Floor, MCH parking complex, Abids, Hyderbad. The petitioner claims to have inherited the said property from her husband after his death and to be running a stationery shop thereat. The 2nd respondent is asserted to be the wife of the brother of the petitioner’s deceased husband and is alleged to be interfering with the petitioner’s business activities in Shop No.10. The petitioner filed O.S.No.6153 of 2007 before the Court of the IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and in I.A.No.550 of 2007 therein, obtained an order of status quo in respect of the property in question. Earlier, alleging interference by the 1st respondent at the instance of the 2nd respondent and seeking an appropriate relief, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5024 of 2008 seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent not to interfere in matters of civil nature. The said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to file a final report on a private complaint preferred by the petitioner and after recording the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent therein that the first respondent is not interfering with the legitimate activities of the petitioner and at the instance of the 2nd respondent. Now the petitioner alleges that the 2nd respondent is trying to enter upon the premises and is causing nuisance thereat and the 1st respondent is not taking any steps to restrain the 2nd respondent from such conduct. From the averments in the writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner is using the 1st respondent as a lever to pursue public law remedies against the alleged private law depredatory conduct of the 2nd respondent. The remedy if at all of the petitioner against any of the alleged conduct of the 2nd respondent is before a civil court of competent jurisdiction and the petitioner has already instituted O.S.No.6153 of 2007 and may pursue appropriate remedies thereat. The relief in specie claimed in the writ petition is misconceived. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 17.6.2008 cvm