IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 925 of 2008 Between: 1 G.Vijaya Lakshmi W/o.Bhaskar Yadav R/o. 2-3-647/K/117/C, Premnagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad. 2 G.Madhu S/o.Bhaskar Yadav Patelnagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad. 3 G.Satyanarayana S/o.Bhaskar Yadav Patelnagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad. 4 K.Malathi W/o.late Krishna R/o. 2-3-647/K/117/C, Premnagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad. 5 G.Sudershan Yadav @ Darshan S/o.Bhaskar Yadav, R/o. 2-3-647/K/117/C, Premnagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malakpet Division, Malakpet, Hyderabad. 2 Circle Inspector of Police, Amberpet P.S., Amberpet, Hyderabad. 3 Sub- Inspector of Police, Amberpet P.S., Amberpet, Hyderabad. 4 Smt.B.Vandana W/o.Govind R/o.2-3-603/15/A, Patelnagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad-13. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.CH.Dhanamjaya Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Home The Court at the stage of admission made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in interfering with the personal life and liberty of the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary. In the affidavit filed by the petitioners, it is averred that petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 5 are sons of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.4 is her daughter, that petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5 along with the husband of petitioner No.1 are residing in Premnagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad while petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are residing separately at Patelnagar, that petitioner No.2 is an auto driver, petitioner No.3 is working in a petrol bunk and petitioner No.5 is doing business. It is averred that respondent No.4 is a resident of their locality running a kirana shop in which the petitioners are purchasing necessary items of grocery etc., on cash and also credit basis. In that connection, some disputes arose between petitioner No.5 and respondent No.4 and on the complaint given by respondent No.4, respondent No.3 started calling petitioner No.5 to the police station and using third degree methods for payment of the amounts due to respondent No.4. The petitioner further alleged that after detaining petitioner No.5 in the police station, respondent No.3 took petitioners 1 to 4 in a van and kept them in police station on 19-01-2008. The petitioners averred that if there is a dispute between petitioner No.5 and respondent No.4, the same is purely civil in nature and there is no justification whatsoever for harassing the petitioners at the instance of respondent No.4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Amberpet Police Station, it is stated that on the complaint filed by respondent No.4, petty case No.727 of 2008 under Sections 70-C and 70-B of City Police Act was registered against petitioner No.5 on 18-01-2008 and he denied using of third degree methods against the petitioners. He also denied the allegation that petitioner Nos.1 to 4 were taken in a van and detained in the police station. It is further stated that petty case is pending against petitioner No.5 and they are not interfering with the personal life and liberty of petitioner Nos. 1 to 4. No reply affidavit is filed controverting the above mentioned allegations. In view of the stand taken by respondent No.3 that he is not interfering with the personal life and liberty of petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 in connection with the dispute between petitioner No.5 and respondent No.4, the writ petition is disposed of. If respondent No.3 interferes with the personal life and liberty of petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 in future, they shall be free to avail their remedy available in law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP No. 1103 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 24-04-2008 ks