IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17292 of 2008 Between: N.Tirupalu S/o. Nagappa R/o. Yerraguntapali, Kutagulla Post, Kadiri Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kadiri, Anantapur District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.SURESH Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned the legality of the action of respondent No.1 in directing him to approach the District Legal Services Authority for redressal of his complaint against undue interference by respondent No.2 in the civil disputes. In response to the notice of this Court, Sri M.K.Singh, Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur District, filed a counter affidavit, in which, he inter alia stated that on receipt of complaint from the petitioner, he summoned respondent No.2 and directed him and all the subordinate police officers not to entertain matters of civil nature. He further stated that apart from the same, he advised the petitioner to approach the District Legal Services Authority, Kadiri for redressal, if any, and made an endorsement to that effect with good intention. Though the action of respondent No.1 in making the above-mentioned endorsement is somewhat strange, this Court does not see any reason to delve into this aspect further because, at the hearing, Sri M.V.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing of this Writ Petition, respondent No.2 stopped interfering in civil disputes. Whenever complaints of interference in civil disputes are received by respondent No.1, it is incumbent upon him to ensure that the subordinate officers refrain from such interference because, complaints of this nature galore in this Court and sooner, this evil is curbed, better it is for the society. In future, respondent No.1 shall not relegate the complainants to authorities such as Legal Services Authorities, which have no control over the police. If the complaints against respondent No.2 or any other subordinate officer within his jurisdiction are received in future, respondent No.1 shall take appropriate action not only to prevent such interference, but also to initiate necessary action against them departmentally. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.22467 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29.06.2009 Bvv/Kvni