IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 21422 of 2009 Between: Mulla Bahuddeen, . .Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Principal Secretary to Home Department and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.21422 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in repeatedly paying domiciliary visits to the petitioner house and insisting him to pay money to 4th respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the petitioner’s personal life, liberty and civil issues between 4th respondent and the petitioner. 2) The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent is carrying on business in money lending and requested the petitioner to introduce borrowers in need of money. The petitioner introduced some customers, who are in need of money, the 4th respondent used to advance money to them and obtain signatures of the petitioner also along with borrowers. On 11.09.2009 the 3rd respondent-Station House Officer, Markapur Town Police Station called the petitioner on phone to come to his station and declared that the petitioner indebted to a tune of Rs.13,51,000/- and put a deadline to the petitioner to pay the same within three months. Then, the petitioner got issued a legal notice to respondent Nos.3 and 4 requesting them not to interfere with the issues, which are civil in nature. After receipt of the same, the 3rd respondent deputed 3 police constables, who are repeatedly paying domiciliary visits to lift the petitioner and hence, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 3) When this matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that the respondent-police never interfered with the personal life of the petitioner nor deputed any police for domiciliary visits to the house of the petitioner as stated by the petitioner in the affidavit. 4) In the light of the said instructions, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to interfere with the personal life, liberty and civil issues between 4th respondent and the petitioner without following due process under law. 5) With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J October 07, 2009 KSH