IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3520 of 2008 Between: Chittobotla Tyagaraja Sarma, S/o.Eswara Sarma, President of Akhila Bharateeya Brahmana Karivena Nityannadana Satram, Srisailam, Kurnool Dist., R/o.H.No.25/204/A,Srinivasa Nagar, Nandyal presently residing at D.No.2-1-566/B/1,Nallakunta, Hyderabad-500 044 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool. 2 The Govt., of A.P., rep by its Director General of Police, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad-4. 3 The Circle Inspector of Police, Srisailam, kurnool Dist., 4 The Sub-Inspector of POlice, I-Town Police Station, Srisailam, Kurnool Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:Ms.MALATHI FOR MR.M.V.RAJARAM Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 in interfering with the affairs of the petitioner’s society and in particular, with the discharge of the petitioner’s functions as President of the society, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Ms.Malathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that there are serious disputes with regard to the affairs of the Akhila Bharateeya Brahmana Karivena Nityannadana Satram, Srisailam between the petitioner on the one side and Sri M.D.Y.Rama Murthy, Sri G.Rama Rao and Sri K.Radhakrishna Murthy on the other, and that civil and criminal cases are pending between the parties. In his affidavit, the petitioner alleged that respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, have been unduly interfering with the petitioner’s discharge of his functions as the President of the said society at the instance of the rival group. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, stated that the above mentioned respondents are in no way interfering either with the petitioner’s functioning as the President of the above society or with his personal life and liberty. The above-mentioned statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is taken on record and the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. In future, if the said respondents interfere with the petitioner’s affairs or with his personal liberty, he shall be entitled to approach the Director General of Police for redressal of his grievance. As a sequel to disposal of main petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.4580 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th APRIL, 2008 kvni