THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 9563 OF 2010 Dated 26th April, 2010 Between: Sabera Begum …Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri D.Krishna Reddy Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri M.A.K.Mukheed The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in putting lock on the petitioner’s shop bearing No.10-3-11, under the name and style of “Channel 5”, situated at Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad and handing over its possession to respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the abovementioned premises having got the said property through a gift deed said to have been executed by her husband. Respondent No.4, who claims the said property as hers, filed W.P.No.26254 of 2008. In the said writ petition, the petitioner therein filed WPMP No.34379 of 2008, wherein the following interim order has been passed. “The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent is interfering with her business and has locked her shop without there being any sanction of law. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader stated that the police neither locked the shop of the petitioner nor interfered with her business. Under those circumstances, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to open the shop bearing No.10-3-11, situated near Dargah Hazrat Salabat Ali Shah Rh, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad and continue her business, pending further orders.” The petitioner pleaded that while purporting to implement the said order, respondent No.2 has handed over possession of the shop to respondent No.4. In my opinion, the petitioner invoked a wrong remedy by filing a separate writ petition instead of impleading herself in W.P.No.26254 of 2008 and contesting the same. The action taken by respondent No.2 in locking the petitioner’s premises and purportedly handing over its possession to respondent No.4 appears to be in the process of implementing the abovementioned interim order of this Court. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to seek vacation or variation of the interim order passed in the pending writ petition. Giving liberty as above to the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.12333 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 26th April, 2010 vrn