HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31820 of 2010 Date : 02.02.2011 Between : Jallipalli Sarveswara Rao. …..Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Chintalapudi Police Station & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31820 of 2010 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in interfering with the ongoing construction work in the premises bearing No.7-83 in Sy.No.913/1C at Gurubatlagudem road in Chintalapudi village and Mandal of West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased the above said house property by way of a registered sale deed in document No.3882/05 from its earlier owner on 20.10.2005. It is stated that having obtained permission from the 2nd respondent, he is proceeding with construction of R.C.C. roof in the said premises. At that stage, there is interference with his construction work by respondents 1 and 2, at the instance of respondent No.3. Based on the written instructions sent by the Station House Officer of Chintalapudi P.S., it is stated that there was a complaint against the father of the petitioner and two others, alleging that they beat the complainant with sticks and a case is registered in Crime No.233/2010 for the offences under Sections 324, 323 r/w.34 of IPC. It is further submitted that except the steps that are being taken for investigating the said crime, respondents 1 and 2 are not interfering with the construction work undertaken by the petitioner. It is stated that with the malafide intention of preventing the Police from taking action on the complaint filed against the father of the petitioner and two others, the present writ petition is filed. As much as it is stated that there was a complaint against the father of the petitioner and two others, basing on which, a crime was registered, and as it is stated that there is no complaint against the petitioner, it is open to the respondent-Police to investigate into Crime No.233/2010. But, as it is specifically pleaded that there is no interference with the constructions made by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, placing on record the statement of the learned Government Pleader that there is no interference by respondents 1 and 2, with the construction work being undertaken by the petitioner. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd February 2011 ajr