IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 16737 OF 2009 Between: Md.Shafi …… petitioner AND The Station House Officer, Amangal PS and others ......Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following:- THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.16737 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in acting to the dictation of the 5th respondent to intimidate the petitioner and thereby violating the petitioner’s right to freedom of movement, freedom of life as being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take all efficacious measures for the safe running of the petitioner’s shop “Shafi Engineering Works” and his vehicle at Amangal village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District including protection of his person and property. The case of the petitioner is that he is running a welding shop in the name of “Shafi Engineering Works” at Amangal village of Mahabubnagar District. The petitioner came to close contact with one P.Chandrika, who is daughter of 5th respondent, and he got married to her on 27.02.2009. On 02.03.2009 the Police of L.B. Nagar came to Amangal and took them to the Police station. In the evening of the same day, about 40 persons accompanied by the 5th respondent came down to the police station and forcibly taken away his wife with them and the Police acted as silent spectators. It is further submitted that he filed a writ of Habeas Corpus in W.P. No.8541 of 2009 and that was closed on the ground that his wife made appearance before this Court and stated that she is living in the company of her parents. The petitioner affirm that his wife made such a statement under duress and not out of her free will. After that, trouble started to him when his father was detained by the 2nd respondent, Station House Officer, Hayathnagar, for few days where he was intimidated by the Police to convince the petitioner to forget his wife forever or else the consequences would be very severe, for which, he is forced to close down his shop at Amangal. It is also submitted by him that besides the aforementioned shop he is also running a Qualis vehicle on hire and the 5th respondent in collusion with the respondents 1 and 2 have been threatening the driver of the vehicle as well as the workers engaged in his shop due to which they are afraid of working under him. Due to illegal acts on the part of the 5th respondent, petitioner’s right of movement and life including his parents are under threat. Unless proper protection is given to him and his family members he cannot run his shop and vehicle for want of food and maintenance. Hence, the present writ petition. Based on the written statement submitted by the 2nd respondent, Station House Officer, Hayathnagar P.S., the learned Government Pleader for Home, submits that the Police, on the instigation of the 5th respondent, never interfered or harassed the petitioner. It is also submitted that no complaint is lodged by the petitioner against the 5th respondent and if he approaches to the Amangal Police necessary protection will be provided to him. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that on the instigation of the 5th respondent the Police authorities are acting for which he closed down his business. The learned Government Pleader denied the allegations made by the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, particularly, the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Home that the respondent authorities are not acting in any manner at the instigation of the 5th respondent and the Police did not receive any complaint from the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out to issue the direction as sought for by the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, with the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed, at the threshold. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 22-09-2009 LSK/IVD