IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,.THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23791 of 1999 Between: D.Rajeshwar Rao, S/o.Hanmantha Rao, H.No.5-62-9/D, Street No.8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Station House Officer, Matwada Police Station, Warangal Town, Warangal District. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Sub Inspector of Police, Matwada Police Station, Warangal Town, Warangal District. 3 M.Raman Kumar, S/o.not Known to the Petitioner, Major Sub Inspector of Police, Matwada Police Station, Warangal Town, Warangal District. 4 G.Asok Babu, S/o.Ramakistayya, R/o.H.No.9-1-195, Girmajipet, Warangal. 5 B.Ramesh Goud, S/o.Sathaiah, Major, R/o.13-894/1, Matwada, Warangal Town, Warangal District. 6 E.Pradeep Kumar Rao, S/o.Jagannadha Rao, R/o.1-7-1277, Advocates' Colony, Hanumakonda, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd/3rd respondent in taking law into his own hands by forcing me to settle the civil disputes between me and the respondent 4 & 5 with regard to our business, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd/3rd respondent not to interfere with any of the civil disputes which the petitioner has with the respondents 4 & 5 and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.23791 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 2 and 3, the officials of the Police Department, in interfering with a civil dispute between himself and respondents 4 and 5 in relation to their business, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequential direction is also sought for. Heard Sri P.Venugopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. In his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner made a detailed reference to the nature of dispute between himself and respondents 4 and 5. They relate to business undertaken in partnership. Apart from proceedings under Criminal Procedure Code, a civil suit being O.S. No. 595 of 1999 is said to have been filed in the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The grievance of the petitioner was that even while the proceedings under relevant provisions of law were pending, respondents 2 and 3 are pressuring them. While admitting the writ petition on 17.11.1999, this court directed respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere with the activities of the petitioner or to harass him in connection with the civil dispute between himself and respondents 4 and 5. It is not known as to whether the dispute still persists or whether the proceedings under relevant provisions of law have attained finality. Be that as it may, respondents 2 and 3 cannot interfere with any civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order passed on 17.11.1999. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 05-12-2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TML}