IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 14722 of 2005 BETWEEN: K. Bala Maheswara Rao @ Mahesh Babu S/o K. Venkappa, Journialist-Vaartha Daily Newspaper R/o 25/625 Srinivasa Nagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, O/o Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District 2 Srinadha Reddy S.I. of Police, I town Police Station, Nandyal, Kurnool District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of A Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner without any legal cause as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondents to forbear from interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KUNCHEAMMAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the second respondent in interfering with his personal life and liberty as illegal and arbitrary. He submits that he made a representation before the Superintendent of Police about the highhanded action of the second respondent but no action has been taken. 2. The second respondent filed a counter denying all the allegations made against him and stated that the petitioner was not at all called to the police station and nobody went to his house and he was not at all harassed. 3. I am not inclined to express any opinion, as it is the specific case of the petitioner that he made a representation to the Superintendent of Police against the second respondent and that the Superintendent of Police has not taken any action. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the first respondent is directed to consider and dispose the representation of the petitioner dated 04.07.2005 said to have been sent by Registered Post. However, it is also open to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the first respondent enclosing the earlier representation so as to enable the first respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 3, 2008 DSK