Gangineni Kondala Rao, Hyd. v. Prl. Secy., Home Dept. and Ano.

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Feb 2024WP/25105/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged police inaction regarding a complaint of interference in civil disputes via a representation. On merits, Respondent counsel relied on an investigation report finding no police interference. Court accepted submissions and closed the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed. No order as to costs. Interlocutory applications closed.

Gangineni Kondala Rao, Hyd. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY. THE .SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 25105 OF 2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gangineni Kondala Rao, Hyd., S/o Murthaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ: Advocate, High Court, D.N0.11-20-42.Flat No.42, Plot No.GS, Huda Complex, Saroomagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Principal Secretary, Home Department & ANO, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in considering the petitioner representation dated 14-8-2014 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to

¶16

¶17

consider the petitioner representation dated 14-8-2014 and take appropriate action basing on the representation.

¶18

b:XOF 2014(WPMP. NO: 31400 OF 20141 4:'' ■- : ?:’5 4 under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances ‘•-V affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be prea:Sed to direct the 2nd respondent consider the Representation of the petitioner dated 14-8-2014, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRi. SANAGA ASHOK KUMAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 2: GP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

[3310]

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶25

'h-

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO: 25105 OF 2014

¶29

Between:

¶30

GANGINENI KONDALA RAO, HYD., S/o Murthaiah, aged^{about44years,} Occ: Advocate, High Court, D.NO. 11-20-42.Flat No.42,^{PlotNo.GS,Huda} Complex, Saroomagar, Hyderabad.

¶31

...PETITIONER(S)

¶32

AND

¶33

PRL SECY HOME DEPT ANO, Home Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶34

The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ, order or direction more^{particularlyoneinthenature} of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in considering the petitioner representation dated 14-8-2014^{asillegal,arbitrary} and contrary to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to^{considerthepetitioner} representation dated 14-8-2014 and take appropriate action basing on the representation

¶37

LA. NO: 1 OF 20l4(WPMP. NO: 31400 OF 2014)

¶38

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent consider the Representation^{ofthepetitionerdated} 14-8-2014, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. SANAGA ASHOK KUMAR

¶40

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶41

V.:

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

This writ petition is filed declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in considering the petitioner representation dated 14.8.2014 as illegal and arbitraiy.

¶45

Heard Sri S. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

¶46

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the Advocate. One Kapilava5d Siva Prasad and Suresh Panchariya are his clients and both of them involved in disputes. The said Kapilavayi Siva Prasad with a view to settle his scores with Suresh Panchariya, lodged a false complaint implicating the petitioner and his wife as accused. Thereafter, the concerned police registered a case in Crime No.80 of 2013 under Section 420 IPC on the file of Narasaraopet II Town Police station, It is stated the concerned police are involved in settle the civil disputes between the defacto • complainant and the l^t accused and registered a false case implicated the petitioner and his wife and came to his house with their subordinates and with some other strangers and trying to arrest the petitioner, While the matter stood thus, both the l^t accused and the defacto complainant compromised the matter and the l^t accused got registered a land belongs to his father s brother in favour of the defacto complainant. Immediately the concerned police referred the matter to Lok Adalat and deleted all other names except accused Nos.l and 2. It is stated that the G.O.ms.No.288

¶47

¶48

dated 6.11.2010 has been issued in pursuance of the^{somanySupreme} Court and High Court judgments in which it has laid^{downsomemodalities} in order to see that immediate relief is given to the^{victimsandappropriate} action is to be taken against the erring police officers^{whoareinterferingin} civil disputes. In pursuance of the said G.O, the Government^ofAndhra Pradesh constituted District Level Committees, Commissionarate Level Committees to monitor the cases of interference of police in civil disputes.

¶49

In pursuance of the above G.O., the Inspector General^{ofPoliceisthe} Chairman for the District Level for the redressal of grievances arising out of ! police people involving in civil disputes. On 18.2.2014^{thepetitionermadea} representation to the Inspector General of Police, Guntur for taking necessary action. But the respondents did not take^anyaction so far. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶50

U I-

¶51

On hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader^{hasfurnisheda} copy of written instructions dated 4.9.2014 issued by the^{InspectorofPolice,} Narasaraopet II Town P.S., Guntur District and contended^{thatafterdetailed} enquiry, the SDPO Narasaraopet has submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Guntdr vide NRC No.67/Petn/SDPO-NRT.20¹⁴ dated 18.3.2014 stating that there were not interference^{ofthepoliceand} their harassment and that the SHO Narasaraopet II Town P.S. has discharged his legitimate duties in conducting the^{investigationinCr.No.80} of 2013 under Section 420 IPC. The petitioner and his^{wifeand5othersare} the accused persons and the case is under investigation, It is further contended that the SHO, Narasaraopet II Town PS., has^{neverharassed.}

¶52

threatened and interfered with the civil dispute of the petitioner at any point of time.

¶53

Recording the above submissions, of learned Assistant Government Pleader, nothing survives in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be closed.

¶54

Aeeordingly, the Writ Petition i IS closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutoiy applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

SD/- G. HELA NAIDU

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

A/^

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRI SANAGA ASHOK KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]

¶63

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME (AP). High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶64

Three C.D Copies MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED:16/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.25105of2014

CLOSING THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS

Gangineni Kondala Rao, Hyd. v. Prl. Secy., Home Dept. and Ano.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangineni Kondala Rao, Hyd. v. Prl. Secy., Home Dept. and Ano.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chillakuru Indiramma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rajualapati Anjanadevi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tigiripalli Papa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Koneru Nagendra Prasad, Vs Prl.Secy., Home Dept., Hyd., and 2 Others

Smt. R.Suneetha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Apsrtc, Rep.by its.Regional Manager, Vs Mastan Gari Subhan Bee