IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14080 of 2006 Between: Yanamala Prabhakar … Petitioner AND The Principal Secretary, Govt., of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14080 of 2006 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal since the scope of the miscellaneous application and the writ petition is identical in nature. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in calling the petitioner to the police station, insisting him to sit hours together without any complaint and threatening him with dire consequences stating that his newly constructed building in plot No.561 comprised in Sy.No.281, 282/1, 287 and 288/1 of Kakatiya Nagar, Malkajgiri Municipality, Ranga Reddy District will be demolished without due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and perused the record. The only grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that respondent No.3 is harassing him by seeking to interfere in the civil dispute relating to plot No.561 comprised in Sy.No.281, 282/1, 287 and 288/1 of Kakatiya Nagar, Malkajgiri Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, he averred that the complaint made by one Sri K. Mallesham son of late Narayana against the petitioner and four others on 27.06.2006 was received by him and a GD entry was made. He further submitted that since the preliminary examination of the complaint revealed that the dispute is of civil nature, he advised the complainant to seek his redressal in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. He denied the allegation that he is interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioner and the said Mallesham. No reply affidavit is filed to controvert the abovementioned averments in the counter affidavit. In view of the categorical stand taken by respondent No.3 that he is not interfering in the civil disputes, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.17553 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 22.04.2008 ES