Disposed

K.Lakshmanna, S/o. K. Eranna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Feb 2024WP/2261/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus restraining police from interfering in his civil dispute with the fourth respondent. Police instructions stated they only acted to maintain law and order under FIR No.140 of 2014 and binding orders in M.C.No.118 of 2014. Finding nothing survived for adjudication, the court closed the writ petition without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

K.Lakshmanna, S/o. K. Eranna, Vs The State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2261 OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.Lakshmanna, S/o. K.Eranna, Agriculturist Kallukunta Village Peddakadabur Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶13

Station House Officer, Peddakadabur Police Station, Peddakadabur, Kurnool District.

¶14

Boya Anjinaiah, S/o. Boya Hussainappa, Agriculturist Kallukunta Village, Peddakadabur Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one rd in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 3

¶17

respondent in interfering with the civil dispute and calling the petitioner to the police station at the instance of respondent is as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently DIRECT the respondent No.3 not to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and 4th respondent.

¶18

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015rWPMP. NO: 3004 OF 2015)

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to DIRECT respondent No. 3 not to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, pending disposal of above writ petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶24

Writ Petition No.2261 of 2015

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the

¶27

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶28

“....declaring the action of the 3’’^ respondent in interfering with the civil dispute and calling the petitioner to the police station at the instance of 4th respondent^is as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently DIRECT the respondent No.3 not to interfere with the civil dispute between the petitioner and 4'^ respondent and pass^such other order or orders ”

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents.

¶30

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has submitted a copy of written instructions dated 09.02.2015^of the 3rd respondent-Sub Inspector of Police, Peddakadabur Police Station, wherein it was stated that police never involved in any civil disputes between the petitioner^{and4^1} respondent. Only to maintain law and order in the village. police called parties in F.I.R.No. 140 of 2014 not to break down peaceful possession. Court orders and directed the parties to bind over in M.C.No.118 of 2014 before the Sub-

¶31

¶32

Divisional Magistrate and R.D.O. Adoni, which is only precautionary measure. The rest of the allegations made against the official respondents are false and fabricated. As such, there are no specific allegations against the police involvement.

¶33

So, in view of the above instructions, nothing survives in this writ petition for further adjudication. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs.

¶34

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stands closed.

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

SD/- B. CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \

¶37

SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To,

¶39

One CC to SRI BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER Advocate [OPUC]

¶40

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶41

Two CD Copies

¶42

YJ(MBT)

¶43

HIGH COURT DATED:08/02/2024

¶44

ORDER

¶45

WP.No.2261 of 2015

¶46

CLOSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS

K.Lakshmanna, S/o. K. Eranna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K.Lakshmanna, S/o. K. Eranna, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tupakula Sambasiva Rao, Vs The Government of A.P.

P.Gopal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary

Andraju Lalitha and 2 Ors. Vs Secy., Home Dept. and 5 Ors.

Y. Ramanjaneyulu, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Abdul Ghani Miah, Hyd. Vs Prl. Secy., Home Dept. and 2 Ors.

Mamillapalli Venkateswarao Rao (Venkateswarlu) Vs The State Government of a.P., rep by its