The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.22103 of 2007 Dated 29th June, 2010 Between: M.Ramanaidu …Petitioner And The Circle Inspector of Police, Rayadurg, Anantapur District, and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: None appeared Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.3: None appeared The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2, in throwing illegal threats and persistent warnings at the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to the said respondents not to interfere with his day-to-day affairs. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner and respondent No.3. The petitioner claims to have joined the office of respondent No.3-Organisation in the month of December, 2000; that his duties were to visit villages and help the villagers by creating awareness in various programmes such as housing schemes, construction of check dams, children’s educational schemes etc., and that to be eligible to participate in the beneficial programmes, the proposed beneficiaries shall make certain deposits to respondent No.3. The petitioner averred that due to ill health, he left respondent No.3- Organisation on 11-07-2005 and that respondent No.3 has treated his absence as his resignation. However, alleging that the petitioner has misappropriated funds to the tune of Rs.1,10,000/-, respondent No.3 approached respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the latter have been harassing the petitioner at the instance of respondent No.3. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of any of the respondents. This Court, while issuing notice before admission by order, dated 12-10-2007, directed the respondents not to arrest the petitioner unless a crime is registered and pending against him. By order, dated 23-09-2009, this Court directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to interfere with the petitioner’s day-to-day affairs, pending the Writ Petition. Inasmuch as the respondents have not come out with any plea that a case has been registered against the petitioner and that he is wanted in connection with any such case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to interfere with the life and personal liberty of the petitioner unless he is accused in any criminal case. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 23-09-2009, is vacated and WPMP.No.28653 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 29th June, 2010 lur