Writ petition seeking action on a 2013 complaint against the sixth respondent over a plot in Vepagunta, Visakhapatnam. Police written instructions reported no trace of the petitioner and no registered FIR. With no petitioner present and nothing surviving, the High Court closed the writ petition without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY^^lSo^^
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
ir) o,
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE, DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 24072 OF 2015
Between:
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therev/ith, the High Court may be pleased to grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not taking any action against the sixth respondent herein on the complaints made by the petitioner on 12.12.2013 illegal, arbitrary, high handed and contrary to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and violative of Articled 14, 21, 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to take action on the complaints made by the petitioner on 12.12.2013 /• I.A. NO: 2 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 31220 OF 20151 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 5 to consider the complaint made by the petitioner on 12.12.2013 '
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015rWPMP. NO: 31219 OF 2015t
Petition under Section CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to injunct the sixth respondent from creating any charge, right or any encumbrance, whatsoever, over the property bearing Plot No. 42, admeasuring 225 sq. yds., comprised in Sy. No. 106/3, 107, 108/IB (old nos.) and New Sy. No. 107, situated at Vepagunta, Visakhapatn am in favour of the third party,
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY
Counsel for the Respondents R1 & R2: GP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondents: ELEVATED AS JUDGE
Counsel for the Respondents R5: G.MADHAVA RAO (SC FOR GVMC )
The Court made the following:
[3310]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 24072 OF 201_5
BcDveen:
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. G KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY
Counsel for the Respondents; GP FOR HOME (AP)
Counsel for the Respondents: ELEVATED AS JUDGE
2
The Court made the following order:
None appeared for the petitioner.
- Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents has submitted written instruetions dated 19.02.2024, wherein it is stated as under;
‘‘It is humbly submitted that during the course of the enqiry into the complaint. I deputed one WHC-192, and she went ot the petitioner’s house in the name of .MSatyavathi, W/o. MR Prasad,R/oDoorNo.38- 37-60, Bhaskar Gardens, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam andtheWHC did not ifnd any person in the above said address in the name of Miss.M.Satyavati and then caused enquiries with local people elders and neighbouring persons and the local persons saidthat Miss. M.Satyavati went to United States ofAmerica along with her son after the death of her husband. There is no petition in the available police records and they did not register FIR at PendurthiPolicestation.”
- On perusal of the written instructions submitted bylearned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents, it is evident that that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are not taking anyactionagainstpetitioner. On 12.12.2013 the respondents have made an enquiry by deputing one WHC-193 and she went to the petitioner’s house in the name of M.Satyavathi, W/o. MR Prasad, R/o. Door No.37-38-60, Bhaskar Gardens, Marripalem, Visakhapatnamd and the WHC did not find any person in the above addressinthenameofMiss. M.Satyavati and then caused enquiries with local people,eldersandneighbouring persons and the local persons said that^M.SatyavatiwenttotheUnitedStatesof America along with her son after the death of her husbandandfurtherthereisno
3
petition in the available police records and they did not register Fir at Pendurthi Police Station. In view of the same, nothing survives in this writ petition.
- Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendingshallstandclosed.
Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
- One CC to SRI. G Kalyan Chakravarthy Advocate [OPUC]
- Two CCs to Gp For Home, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh.,[-OUT]
- One CC to SRI. ELEVATED AS JUDGE Advocate [OPUC]'
- Two CD Copies
YJ
\
HIGH COURT DATED;26/02/2024
ORDER
WP.No.24072 of 2015
of
L^\»
i/X" mil
I Vto 1 3 AUG 203'! ost;
. Current Secliori
CLOSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Satyavathi
State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad
Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam City
The Station House Officer, Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam City
Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Executive Officer
The Joint Commissioner, Zone-6, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Vepagunta, Visakhapatnam
K Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
