IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11801 of 2009 Between: D. Siva Kumar Reddy S/o. Krishna Reddy R/o. Plot No.400, Saraswathinagar, Dargamitta, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Mines & Geology, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Nellore, Nellore District. 4 The Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Guntur, Guntur District. 5 Station House Officer, P.S. Manubolu, Nellore District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: AGP FOR INDUSTRIES Counsel for respondent No.5: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D ER: This writ petition is also one of plenitude of petitions, wherein complaints have been made against the unlawful interference by the police with the civil rights of the citizens. The petitioner claims to hold quarry leases over certain lands in Survey No.1080 of Vadlapudi Village, Manubolu Mandal, Nellore District. There is a dispute among the pattadars and according to the petitioner, the grant of mining leases was questioned by one T.Venkata Krishna Reddy by filing a revision before respondent No.1 and that the said revision was dismissed on 23-09-2005, wherein the order of respondent No.3 granting leases is confirmed. The petitioner’s grievance is that at the instance of the rival parties, respondent No.5 has been unduly interfering with the quarry and transport operations. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Manubolu Police Station, Nellore District, it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioner’s complaint given against one Masthanaiah was registered as Crime No.75 of 2009 and the counter complaint given by Masthanaiah was registered as Crime No.76 of 2009 against the petitioner under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. While denying that he is interfering with the mining activities, respondent No.5 submitted that no complaint was filed against the petitioner with respect to mining activities and that he never asked the petitioner to stop the quarrying operations. At the hearing, Smt N.Shoba, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that respondent No.5 in fact interfered with the petitioner’s mining activities and it is only to save his skin that he filed the present counter-affidavit by denying such interference. The petitioner has not given specific instances of respondent No.5 obstructing him from mining the quarry and transporting the mineral. In the absence of such specific details, it is not possible for this Court to probe further into the allegations and decide on the correctness or otherwise of the denial made by respondent No.5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, by placing on record the categorical denial of respondent No.5 that he is interfering with the mining activities of the petitioner. If respondent No.5 interferes with the petitioner’s mining activities in future, the petitioner is permitted to file a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Nellore District and if such a complaint is filed, the latter shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.15199 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 25th June, 2009 vrn