THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 7560 OF 2010 Dated 7th April, 2010 Between: Syed Zia-Ul-Hassan and another …Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri E.V.V.S Ravi Kumar Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: It is yet another case, where serious allegations of interference with civil disputes by the police are made. According to the petitioners, there are disputes between them and respondent No.4 in connection with hiring of two vehicles. They have specifically alleged that respondent No.3, who is stated to be the A.S.I of Jagityal Town Police Station, has been unduly interfering in these disputes at the instance of respondent No.4. The petitioners have alleged that respondent No.3 forced them to execute an understanding deed on a white paper purported to have been executed on 15.12.2009, wherein they purported to have acknowledged their debt and have undertaken to repay the same. The petitioners also alleged that respondent No.3 has retained the original of the said undertaking, a copy of which is filed in the writ petition. I have heard Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondents 1 and 2. This Court, time and again, has been expressing its displeasure over the conduct of the police in interfering with the civil disputes. Even in the absence of conclusive evidence against their interference, it is reasonable to presume that unless such interference is caused by the police, ordinarily a citizen would not go the extreme extent of invoking a constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India complaining against such interference. In the absence of evidence, it is not possible for this Court to record conclusive findings in this respect but at the same time, it is the duty of the superior officers to cause discrete enquires into the conduct of their subordinates whenever such complaints against them arise. Respondent No.2 is therefore directed to cause an enquiry to be held into the allegations made by the petitioners in this writ petition against respondent No.3 and if it is found that respondent No.3 has unduly interfered in the civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.4 and harassed the petitioners in that connection, appropriate departmental action should be initiated against him apart from ensuring that in future, the police would not interfere in such civil disputes. Respondent No.2 shall complete this process within a period of four (4) weeks and communicate the order to the petitioners immediately thereafter. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.9721 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 7th April, 2010 vrn