IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8053 of 2008 Between: Chapiri Anjaneyulu … Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur District at Anantapur & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri N. Ranga Reddy. 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.8053 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner on the one side and respondent No.4 on the other, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner also sought for a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to interfere with the civil disputes. Heard Sri M. Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. In the view I am taking, I do not find it necessary to issue notice to respondent No.4. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner submitted that there is open space between the house of respondent No.4 and one Avulenna intended for free passage and ingress and egress for respondent No.4 and the petitioner, that respondent No.4 claiming exclusive right over the said open space filed O.S.No.32 of 1998 before the learned District Munsiff, Kalyandurg and the said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 11.05.1994 and that the petitioner filed appeal bearing AS.No.19 of 1999, which was allowed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, by judgment dated 28.03.2000. The petitioner alleged that the son of respondent No.4, being a leading newspaper reporter, is bringing pressure on respondent Nos.2 and 3, who in turn have been exerting pressure on the petitioner to settle the abovementioned civil dispute. The petitioner specifically alleged that every day he is being summoned to the police station by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and made to sit in the police station from 10.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. If what the petitioner alleged in this writ petition bears any truth, the said action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot be countenanced. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 will do well to remember that it is not part of their duty to interfere with the civil disputes and unless any complaint pointing to the commission of a cognizable offence by any person, is received, it is not either the function of respondent Nos.2 and 3 nor do they have any power to interfere in the civil disputes between two private individuals. I am therefore inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and the life and liberty of the petitioner in connection therewith. Ordered accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.10605 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.04.2008 ES