IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11650 of 2009 Between: Shaik Khajamia S/o.Peeru Saheb R/o.Girisastrula Vari Kandriga, Vinduru Post, Gudur Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Nellore District at Nellore. 3 The Sub-Divisional Police Officer/ Dy. Superintendent of Police, Gudur, Nellore District. 4 Sri Sambasiva Rao Gudur Rural Police Station, Gudur, Nellore District. 5 Pavuluru Mohan Rao S/o.Venkata Subba Naidu R/o.Narsingaraopet, Gudur Town, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.ROY REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5: ----- The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, who felt aggrieved by the alleged interference of respondent No.4 in civil disputes between himself and respondent No.5, filed the present Writ Petition. As usual, a blanket denial of interference is pleaded by respondent No.5. The contents of the counter-affidavit, to the extent relevant, are reproduced herein below: “The allegation of the petitioner that though his counsel advised this respondent, this respondent had persisted the petitioner to settle the issue and is continuing to send constables to his house and that the petitioner is being taken to the police station almost every day is absolutely false and hence, the same is denied. The further allegation of the petitioner that this respondent has also instructed him in the presence of his counsel that he should not carry on agricultural operations over his land is false and hence the same is denied. It is pertinent to submit that no complaint whatsoever is received against the petitioner herein from the 5th respondent so far. I have never interfered with the civil disputes. I have never sent constables to call the petitioner to the police station and obtain any signatures as alleged in the affidavit. I submit that it appears that to wreak vengeance against the 5th respondent, the petitioner has made baseless allegations against this respondent. The dispute of the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent is purely civil in nature and hence, this respondent is no way concerned with it. All the other allegations made against this respondent are false and hence, the same are denied.” In view of this categorical assertion of respondent No.5, the Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the credibility or otherwise of his denials in the counter-affidavit. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach respondent No.2 with a complaint against respondent No.4, if he interferes in civil disputes in future. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.15013 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 23rd June, 2009 LUR