IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1769 of 2008 Between: Smt. Hymavathi & others. … Petitioners AND Inspector of Police, Eluru Town, Eluru & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Home Counsel for respondents 3&4: Sri P. Rajasekar This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1769 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in interfering with the personal life, liberty and privacy of the petitioners in connection with the civil disputes between them and respondent Nos.3 to 5, as wholly illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to interfere with their life and liberty. Heard Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri P. Rajasekar for respondent Nos.3 to 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners averred that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 entered into a development agreement with respondent No.3 and her son Mr.Venkata Rama Rao on 02.05.2005, that on the same day another development agreement was entered into between petitioner No.3 and respondent No.3 terminating the earlier agreement and that no development agreement existed between petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 and her son due to entering into the subsequent agreement. The petitioners’ grievance is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are no way concerned with the activities being undertaken under the development agreement for construction of a multi-storied building and that at the instance of respondent Nos.3 to 5 they are interfering with the petitioners’ activities by bringing pressure on them to enter into a development agreement with respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the ratio of 60:40. On the basis of such an agreement, respondent Nos.3 and 4 got issued legal notice dated 28.12.2007 making false allegations in calling upon the petitioners to pay Rs.50 lakhs equivalent to the share of 40%, apart from payment of damages. In this background, the petitioners alleged that respondent Nos.1 and 2 called them to the police station on 28.01.2008 and when they requested respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to interfere with the civil disputes, they grew wild and started abusing them in filthy language stating that unless they pay a sum of Rs.50 lakhs to respondent Nos.3 and 4 towards the 40% share of the construction, they will be taken to task. Questioning this action of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the present writ petition is filed. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit in which he denied all the allegations made by the petitioners as referred to above. It is averred that respondent No.3 lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, who endorsed it and forwarded the same to respondent No.2 for taking necessary action. After making an entry in the general diary and conducting preliminary enquiry, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were satisfied that the accusations made by the complainant against the petitioners are purely civil in nature, that the dispute could be settled only in a competent Court of law and that respondent No.2 accordingly advised respondent No.3 to approach the competent Court for redressal of her grievances. Respondent No.2 asserted that no action was initiated on the complaint of respondent No.3. He also denied the allegations that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have brought pressure on the petitioners to pay Rs.50 lakhs towards the 40% share of respondent No.3. In view of the stand taken by respondent No.2 as referred to above, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.2199 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.03.2008 ES