THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.8266 of 2010 Date: 21-6-2010 Between Shaik Imtiyaz Ahmed … Petitioner and The Superintendent of Police, Medak District, Sangareddy & Others. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.8266 of 2010 Order: This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed for issuance of writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce Shaik Shakeel Ahmed, the father- in-law of the petitioner before this Court. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the alleged detenu is dealing in supply of marriage articles and decoration items under the name and style of ‘Shaik Ahmed & Sons Supplying Company’ at Sangareddy. During the course of business, the petitioner’s father-in-law (alleged detenu) took a marriage hall at Sangareddy from the third respondent on lease for a period of three years i.e. from 1.12.2006 to 1.12.2009. Since there were disputes between the alleged detenu and third respondent with regard to the function hall, suit and counter suits were filed. In the course of said dispute, second respondent- police came to the function hall, enquired into the matter, took the alleged detenu on 23.3.2010 for some enquiry but thereafter he did not return home. The third respondent is influential in Sangareddy and that the petitioner is apprehending danger to the alleged detenu from the third respondent. It is alleged that the second respondent with the active connivance of the third respondent might have done something to the alleged detenu. In response to the notice, second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that in I.A.No.172 of 2009 in O.S.No.58 of 2009, the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad passed interim orders on 14.5.2009 granting interim injunction restraining the alleged detenu from interfering with the managing committee and possession of the third respondent over the suit schedule property and that the said order has been confirmed in the revision. Subsequently, third respondent committee filed I.A.No.560 of 2009 in I.A.No.172 of 2009 in O.S.No.58 of 2009 seeking to grant police aid for implementation of the injunction orders, dated 14.5.2009 passed in I.A.No.172 of 2009. The A.P. Wakf Tribunal allowed the said I.A. by order, dated 23.2.2010 granting police aid. At the representation of the third respondent to provide police aid by virtue of the order passed by the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, a G.D. entry was made to that effect and police aid was provided on 23.3.2010 at about 11.00 a.m. When the police reached to implement the said order, the alleged detenu tried to create commotion and also tried to manhandle the other party. Then the police intervened and pacified both the parties and asked the alleged detenu to vacate the suit schedule premises by taking all his articles. It is stated that thereafter, the second respondent had no occasion to visit the said place. It is also asserted that no crime has been registered against the alleged detenu nor he is wanted in any crime and therefore, there was no occasion for them to apprehend the alleged detenu. On receipt of communication from the office of the Advocate-General, the second respondent said to have made enquiries with the family members of the alleged detenu and called his nephew namely Shaik Rahmad and recorded his statement on 22.4.2010, wherein he stated that his paternal uncle i.e. the alleged detenu is running a tent house along with his son and brother-in-law, that about 10 days back his uncle left the shop and went away somewhere and at present, his whereabouts are not known to him. Though the counter affidavit has been served on the petitioner on 31.5.2010, no reply has been filed till now. In view of the same, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking time for filing a reply cannot be acceded to. The learned counsel sought time only to avoid the explanation for suppression of the facts by the petitioner. Along with the counter affidavit, the copies of the orders passed by the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad have been enclosed, which discloses the injunction order suffered by the alleged detenu and also the police protection ordered in favour of the third respondent for implementation of the orders passed in I.A.No.172 of 2009 in O.S.No.58 of 2009. The petitioner cleverly and simply stated in the affidavit that there were some civil disputes between the third respondent and the alleged detenu, but the details thereof have been suppressed, which have been brought to the notice of this Court by way of counter affidavit. In the circumstances, we do not see any merit in the allegations made in the writ petition that the alleged detenu has been illegally detained by the police. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY ___________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU JUNE 21, 2010. Tsr