IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7017 of 2008 Between: Mathi Ratna Raju … Petitioner AND The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Amalapuram, East Godavari District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S. Raja Sekhar Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7017 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in summoning the petitioner and his family members to the police station and making them sit for hours together at the instance of respondent No.4, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to enquire into the complaint given by him against respondent No.3 and take action against him. In his affidavit, the petitioner claimed that respondent No.4, who is his son-in-law, has been influencing respondent No.3 to harass him, because, in the opinion of respondent No.4, the petitioner is instrumental in his daughter, who is the wife of respondent No.4, for not sending him enough money for spending on luxuries, from Dubai, where she has been working. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.4 lodged a complaint on 15.11.2007 against him and since then respondent No.3 has been summoning him to the police station and making him to wait there for long number of hours. The petitioner stated that on 17.12.2007, he filed representation to respondent Nos.1 and 2 against respondent No.3, but so far, they have not taken any action against respondent No.3. I have heard Sri S. Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 to 3. If respondent No.3 is perpetrating excesses on the petitioner in the guise of investigating into a complaint, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are bound to see that respondent No.3 does not indulge in excesses against innocent citizens. Though no direct evidence is adduced by the petitioner and in the nature of the complaint, it is not possible for the petitioner to do so, the very fact that the petitioner went to the extent of sending a representation to respondent Nos.1 and 2 against respondent No.3 shows that the petitioner has a genuine grievance against respondent No.3. Without going into the correctness or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner that respondent No.3 is harassing him, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner said to have been filed by him on 17.12.2007 and take appropriate action thereon. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.9192 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.04.2008 ES