IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.8330 of 2009 Between: Super Educational Trust Towli Chowki, Hyderabad, rep., by its Managing Trustee, Mrs. Haseen Fatima … Petitioner And The Station House Officer, S.R. Nagar, P.S. Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Rana Praveer Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Home This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8330 of 2009 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in seizing the material and registering crime No.165 of 2009, dated 08.02.2009, as illegal. The petitioner also sought for a direction to the respondents not to interfere with its activities. Heard Sri P. Rana Praveer, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The petitioner claims to be a registered educational trust being run in accordance with Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the institute is being run for the benefit of Muslim minorities offering courses in Arts, Commerce, Science and Management to the level of under-graduate and providing study material to the students apart from conducting periodical classes, tests and final examinations and awarding marks statements to the students, who succeed in the examination. The petitioner further claimed that it has got a right under the Constitution to run such an institute without there being any permission from any quarter. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Sanjeevreddy Nagar, respondent No.1, filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is inter alia mentioned that Sri D. Prasanna Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Task Force, Hyderabad, lodged a complaint with respondent No.1 police station on 08.02.209 to the effect that one person by name Syed Afsaruddin is running an office in the name of Hyderabad Educational and Research Centre at Erragadda without any valid permission from the concerned authorities and issuing fabricated educational certificates to the needy students without conducting any valid examination by collecting huge amounts. On receipt of the said information, respondent No.1 went along with the panchas to the premises in question and recorded the confessional-cum- seizure panchanama of the accused in the presence of the mediators. It is further stated that on interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed that he floated an organization in the name of Hyderabad Educational and Research Centre and that he is fabricating educational certificates and collecting hefty amounts from the needy students ranging between Rs.8,000/- and Rs.15,000/- and that he also opened three branches at different places in the city. Respondent No.1 further stated that on the basis of his confession, he seized the incriminating material and registered crime No.165 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 468 and 420 IPC on 08.02.2009 and that during the investigation he examined six witnesses and obtained their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also averred that the accused Syed Afsaruddin was arrested on 08.02.2009 and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Respondent No.1 opined that the accused is guilty of cheating innocent students by issuing fabricated educational certificates. He also stated that the investigation is almost completed and that the police are not interfering with the lawful activities of the petitioner’s institution. No reply affidavit is filed controverting the above averments contained in the counter-affidavit. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and interference by the police with its lawful activities is unwarranted and illegal. The question whether the petitioner committed an offence or not is required to be investigated by the police and decided by the jurisdictional Court. It is therefore not possible for this Court to give a conclusive opinion on this aspect. However, the fact remains that on the basis of the search, certain incriminating material was seized by the police and the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure is set in motion. The criminal case is admittedly pending. Therefore, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the functioning of the police or the criminal proceedings at this stage. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that the police are interfering with its lawful activities, as noted above, respondent No.1 in categorical terms stated that they are not interfering with the lawful activities of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance in this regard. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.10896 and 11994 of 2009 are dismissed as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.06.2009 ES