IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14516 of 2009 Between: Budigi Venkatesh, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah R/o. D.No. 4/223, Satyanarayanapuram, Ongole. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District at Ongole. 2 The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Station House Officer, Taluka Police Station, Ongole. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ/order/direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent police in interfering with the nature of civil disputes as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the police not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the House in Door No. 4/223, Satyanarayanapuram, Ongole Counsel for the Petitioner:NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare intervention of respondent No.3 in the life and liberty of the petitioner and his right to enjoy his House bearing Door No.4/223, Satyanarayanapuram, Ongole as illegal and arbitrary. According to the petitioner, at the instance of one Sri G.V.S.Raju of Secunderabad, respondent No.3 has been forcing him to sell the above mentioned house to him. The petitioner is claimed to have submitted representation dated 12.12.2008 to respondent No.1. His grievance is that neither respondent No.1 has taken any action on his representation nor respondent No.3 stopped interfering. On instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted that respondent No.3 has not been interfering with either the life and liberty of the petitioner or his right to enjoy the above mentioned property. She stated that Sri G.V.S.Raju is no other than the father of the petitioner’s daughter-in-law and that respondent No.3 has nothing to do with the property affairs of the petitioner. In view of the statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home referred to above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 not to cause any interference with respect to the petitioner’s life and liberty and his right to enjoy the property in future, without following due process of law. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.19033 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 28th July, 2009 vrn