IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16398 of 2009 Between: Roddam Mohsina & others. … Petitioners And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Dept., of Home, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri N. Aswartha Narayana Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5356 of 2010 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in calling the petitioner to the Police Station and confining them for hours together to force them to settle the disputes with respondent No.3, as illegal and unconstitutional. In the manner in which the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to hear respondent No.3. The petitioner made serious allegations against respondent Nos.1 and 2 of their interference in civil disputes between him and respondent No.3, who are the tenant and landlady respectively. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, these allegations are specifically denied. It is inter alia stated that on the oral complaint made by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 contacted the petitioner over cellphone only to enquire on the nature of the disputes and that respondent No.1 warned respondent No.2 not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3 and that if he violates the said instructions, necessary action will be initiated against him by sending a report to the higher officials. Though respondent No.1 made denial of the petitioner’s allegations of interference, the contents of para 6 would imply that when respondent No.2 sought to interfere in civil disputes, respondent No.1 has warned him not to do so. This Court has time and again held that the police have no power or jurisdiction to interfere in the civil disputes. Despite these orders, the instances of police interference are continuing unabated. Since respondent No.1 has sought to take corrective steps by preventing respondent No.2 from interfering in civil disputes, this Court refrains from making further orders making any further observations on the conduct of respondent No.2. In the light of the contents of the counter affidavit, the writ petition is closed with the direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3 in future. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.6879 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.06.2010 ES