Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bhattiprolu Rama Mohana Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 14 October, 2019
Author: G. Shyam Prasad
Bench: G. Shyam Prasad
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.13973 OF 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent at the instance of 4th respondent in insisting the petitioner to appear before the respondent authority and settle the lapsed and defaulted LIC policy claim dispute of 4th respondent's deceased son, namely, P.K.Shekar and LIC Branch at Tenali as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent-police.
3. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondent police not to interfere in the civil dispute between the petitioner and 4th respondent. The respondents 2 and 3 are insisting the petitioner to appear before them and to settle the dispute with regard to lapsed and defaulted L.I.C. Policy claim in respect of the 4th respondent's deceased son namely P.K.Shekar pertaining to L.I.C. Branch at Tenali.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as LIC agent since December, 1997 attached to LIC of India, Tenali Branch. The 4th respondent Gali Param Jyothi has taken a Life Insurance Policy in the name of her son P.K.Shekar, who was working in Border Security Force, at the time of taking policy, vide LIC Policy 2 No.677142686 for Rs.3,00,000/-. The Policy has commenced on 28.06.2013 and premium was paid upto 28.06.2014.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent Station House Officer, Kolluru Police Station, Guntur District has been continuously sending the police Constables to call the petitioner to appear before the Police.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the Police are not supposed to interfere into the civil disputes in respect of LIC policy claim.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent-police submits that in Spandana programme, a complaint has been received, by the Superintendent of police and in that connection, the petitioner is called to the police station to settle the dispute. Otherwise, Police would not interfere in the affairs of the petitioner.
8. Considering the submissions of the both the counsel, since the petitioner is not ready to settle the matter in spandana programme, there is no necessity to the respondent Police to interfere in the petitioner's matter. Therefore, the police are directed not to interfere in the civil disputes of the petitioner.
9. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD 14.10.2019 CKR