Hussain , Hussain Bin Ali v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.42194 OF 2015

O R D E R

The prayer of the petitioner in this case is as under: 'This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 4th respondent in calling the petitioner to the 3rd and 4th respondents office on the instructions of the 5th respondent without following due process of law as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to verify all the documents presented by the petitioner and adhere the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.P.No.7933 of 2015 dt.10-09-2015 and restrain the illegal acts and atrocities of the 4th respondent at the instance of the 5th respondent upon the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Office of the DCP, South Zone, Hyderabad, filed a counter-affidavit contesting the claim of the petitioner. In para 8 of the said counter, he stated as under: 'It is submitted that, after receipt of interim orders dated 29.12.2015 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WPMP No.54424/2015 in the present Writ Petition, the 3rd Respondent enquired into the matter and found no illegalities or irregularities committed by the 4th Respondent, as alleged by the petitioner in the affidavit. It is submitted that there is no complaint received by the 3rd Respondent Office against the petitioner and no case was entrusted to the 4th Respondent concerning the petitioner. The 4th Respondent is not investigating any case relating to the petitioner herein.

Hence, question of 4th Respondent calling the petitioner to the 3rd Respondent office, as alleged, is not correct and hereby denied. It is further submitted that, in obedience to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court, necessary instructions were issued to the 4th Respondent to ensure compliance of the provisions of law, while discharging his functions.'

Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that in the light of the aforestated stand of the police authorities, the writ petition may be closed. The contents of para 8 of the counter-affidavit are accordingly taken on record. In the light thereof and as the learned counsel himself stated that no further adjudication is required, this writ petition is closed. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.

______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 22nd FEBRUARY, 2016 Svv