Chinnolla Gangamani v. The Secretary,

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18321 of 2014 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. 2.

The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under:- "...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus duly declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 extending threats to settle the issue thereby interfering with the personal life and liberty of the Writ Petitioner, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to take action on the representation filed by the Writ Petitioner on 06.02.2013 and consequentially direct to the Respondent No.5 conduct enquiry and fix the boundaries and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3.

Learned Government Pleader placed on record the written instructions issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bheemgal Police Station, Nizamabad District.

4.

From a perusal of the said written instructions, it is revealed that the 4th respondent never harassed, threatened and interfered with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the un-official respondents and also not interfered with the personal life and liberty of the petitioner, at any point of time. The Sub-Inspector of Police, who has issued the written instructions, has taken charge as Station House Officer, Bheemgal Police Station on 23.01.2014 and as per the records of the Station, there is no entry in the General Diary and Reception Register about receipt of the alleged complaint, dated 06.02.2013, said to have been lodged by the petitioner. It is further mentioned in the

written instructions that the 4th respondent never threatened the petitioner to settle the issue with the respondents 6 to 8. The petitioner was also never called to the Police Station and threatened to withdraw the complaint, dated 06.03.2014, lodged before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armoor, against the respondents 6 to 8. 5.

Even from the material papers filed along with the writ petition, there is no endorsement of the 4th respondent that the complaint has been lodged on 06.02.2013. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the specific instructions, no further cause would survive in the writ petition and the same is liable to be closed. 6.

Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J 31st December 2019 mar