( 1 ) THE four writ petitions are filed by different persons of different places against the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Sub-Inspectors of Police and station House Officers, III Town Police Station and IV Town Police Station, Kurnool. The main complaint in the writ petitions is that the petitioners are against the alleged interference by the police in civil disputes. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader was directed to file counter-affidavits duly sworn to by the Superintendent of Police. Accordingly counter-affidavits have been filed by the Head of the District Police. The matters were heard together and are disposed of by common order.

( 2 ) THE allegations and averments in the affidavits may be noticed briefly. In W. P. No. 19056 of 2001, the petitioner is a businessman dealing in vegetable seeds. The second petitioner is an Advocate at Kurnool. It is alleged that the son of the first petitioner married S. Sameena Afroze in the year 1995. On 22-3-2001, the second son, Ahmed Hussain died due to heart attack. Disputes started over sharing the money of late Ahmed Hussain, which was deposited in S. B. Accounts and by way of Fixed deposits. It is alleged that the daughter-in-law influenced the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool and Sub-Inspector of Police, SP Office, Kurnool and summoned the petitioners to the Office of the Superintendent of Police and tried to force a compromise between her and the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in interfering with civil disputes is illegal and unconstitutional.

( 3 ) IN W. P. No. 23792 of 2001, the case of the petitioner is that he had purchased paddy worth Rs. 2,15,000/- from the father of the 4th respondent and executed two promissory notes for Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,15,000/- in his favour and that he had paid the entire amount to the father of the 4th respondent. But, only one promissory note relating to Rs. 1,00,000/- was returned and the other was not returned. The father of the 4th respondent approached the 1st respondent for his help, and the 3rd respondent under the directions of the 1st respondent is pressurising the petitioner by sending Constables for payment of the said amount to the father of the 4th respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in harassing the petitioner by interfering with the civil disputes and false claims made by respondent No. 1 and in the process forcing the petitioner to visit the police station, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with his freedom of life and liberty.

( 4 ) IN W. P. No. 3650 of 2002, the petitioner states that he borrowed the amounts of Rs. 23000/- and Rs. 20000/- from the 4th respondent on 18-5-1996 for agricultural purpose and executed two promissory notes for the said amount. Later on 11-3-1999, renewal of the said promissory notes was made. While so, at the instance of the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent called the petitioner to his office and threatened him with dire consequences if repayment is not made to the 4th respondent. He states that he was illegally detained for 3 days from 20-12-2001 to 22-12-2001 in III Town Police Station, Kurnool and that he was released after 3 days by cautioning that he should repay the amount within 3 months. Hence, questioning the said interference by the police in the petitioner s agricultural activities, the writ petition has been filed.

( 5 ) W. P. 5430 of 2002 has also been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in calling the petitioner to appear before them through the local police under the guise of Police Darbar as illegal and violative of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere in the personal liberty of the petitioner h