3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, earlier, when the Commandant, Armed Reserved Police, Hyderabad, interfered with the repairs being carried out by one Khaja Ghouse Shareef to his house, in which, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner herein is a tenant, this Court, in Contempt Case No.2034 of 1998, while recording the stand of the Commandant that they were not interfering with the petitioner’s property, closed the said contempt case by observing that if the Commandant and other two respondents, who are the Government of AP, represented by its Secretary and the Collector and Magistrate, Hyderabad, tried to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of his property or carrying on with any repairs, the petitioner will be at liberty to proceed against them in accordance with law. It is, therefore, his submission that, despite the aforesaid orders, when the petitioner herein, who is the tenant of the said Khaja Ghouse Shareef, is effecting repairs, he is falsely implicated in the instant case, hence, it is a clear case of abuse of process of law and, therefore, sought to quash the proceedings in the Calendar Case against the petitioner.
