The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.5378 of 2010 Dated 26th March, 2010 Between: Sohail Bin Sayeed Basalama. …Petitioner And 1.The Circle Inspector of Police, Narayanguda, Hydeabad and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.N.Hassan Baqri Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Home The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in interfering in civil disputes without complying with the order passed by the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in E.P.No.06/2009 in R.C.No.81 of 2009, in respect of property bearing Municipal No.3-5- 782/10/1, King Kothi, Hyderabad, as illegal and unconstitutional. I have heard Mr.S.N.Hassan Baqri, learned Counsel representing Mr.Mir Masood Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing the respondents. In his affidavit, the petitioner stated that seeking eviction of his tenant viz., Yaseen Ali, he filed R.C.No.81 of 2008 and succeeded in getting order of eviction, dated 21st January, 2010, from the Court of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad; that as the premises was not vacated, the learned Rent Controller directed the bailiff to break open the lock by taking the Police Aid; that after taking the Police help, the bailiff executed the warrant on 29- 01-2010 and that possession was accordingly handed over to the petitioner in the presence of witnesses and the Police under Panchanama. It is further stated that when the petitioner started renovation work, respondent No.1 is stated to have come to the site on 28th February, 2010 and threatened labourers against carrying out the work and that the petitioner’s enquiries revealed that the said respondent has interfered on the complaint given by the petitioner’s neighbour. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that even after this Court ordered notice in the Writ Petition, respondent No.1 has been interfering with the petitioner’s renovation work. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing the respondents stated that respondent No.1 has instructed him to state that he has nothing to do with the renovation work being carried on by the petitioner and that he has not been interfering with the said work. This submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home is placed on record and the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the above-mentioned property, including its renovation work, without following due process of law. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.6915 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 26th March, 2010 lur