The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.7156 of 2010 Dated 30th March, 2010 Between: M.Praveen Kumar. …Petitioner And 1.Assistant Commissioner of Police, Balanagar, Cyberabad, Hyderabad and 2 others. …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Gade Venkateswara Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: AGP for Home Counsel for Respondent No.3: ---- The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2, in providing protection to the petitioner from interference of respondent No.3 and her associates with his efforts to shift his water plant equipment from premises bearing door No.5-8-5/2, situated at Sri Sri Nagar, near IDPL Railway gate, IDA Moosapet, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner claims to be running a water plant at the premises referred to above and that he is seeking to shift his establishment to another premises in order to hand over vacant possession to his landlord. The petitioner averred that while running the water plant, he has engaged a water tanker on hire from respondent No.3 and that the said water tanker was involved in an accident on account of which it was seized by the Police. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 is preventing him from shifting the plant and machinery by insisting that unless he gets the tanker released to her, she will not permit shifting. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he approached respondent No.2 to grant assistance to him to shift the plant, respondent No.2 is refusing to extend such help. The facts referred to above show that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 over the water tanker. Respondent No.2 is not expected to be involved in such a dispute. If, according to the petitioner, respondent No.3 has been unlawfully interfering with his right to shift the plant, he is entitled to approach the competent civil Court and claim appropriate relief against respondent No.3. Until such a relief is obtained, respondent No.2 cannot be allowed to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3. Therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioner in this Writ Petition deserves to be rejected. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.9237 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 30th March, 2010 lur