Disposed

Dubla Bhanupriya, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Jan 2024WP/30089/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged police encroachment on her personal liberty at her father's instance. Respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating police only counselled the family on the father's request and never interfered with her liberty. Nothing survived for adjudication; the writ petition was closed without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dubla Bhanupriya, Vs The Government of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 30089 OF 2014

¶6

Between:

¶7

Dubla Bhanupriya. D/o Amgoth Ramji Dubla Naik, Aged 28 years, Occu' Private Employee, R/o My Home Hostel, Abdul Khan Estate, Kurnool.

¶8

...PETITIONER AND

¶9

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶10

The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Anantapur^District. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hindupur, Anantapur^District 4. The Station House Officer, l-Town Police Station, Hindupur, Anantapur

¶11

District.

¶12

The Station House Officer, ll-Town Police Station, Hindupur, Anantapur

¶13

District. Aged about 54 years, Occu-

¶14

DisS D.No.5-8-90, Krishna Layout, Hindup ur, Anantapur

¶15

Dubla Charan Tej, S/o Amgoth Ramji Dubla Naik, Aged^about 25 years, Occu; Private Employee, R/o D.No.5-8-90 District Krishna Layout, Hindupur, Anantapur

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court mav be diWt^*^ ^ Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or the Snce''oT6‘^ind respondent in yielding pressure^at s nofhfno but ^n ' H the presence of petitioner which reliejs this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper^{inthecircumstancesofthe} or

¶18

■p>

¶19

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 37607 OF ?ni4) ^

¶20

the C'>=umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to take any coercive steps to secure the preSnS of eLf o lefefsSlrsVoXr "a™® of the case '* "'® “fc^mstances

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI N. V. ANANTHA KRISHNA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 &7: SRI MYNAM BHASKAR

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶26

Writ Petition No.30089 of 2014

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief;

¶29

“....declaring the impugned action of respondent in yielding pressure at the instance of and 7"* respondents to secure the presence of petitioner which^is nothing but encroachment into her right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of^the Constitution, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to us under Part-Ill of the Constitution of India etc. and consequently direct respondents 2 to^5not to interfere with the right to life and personal liberty of the petitioner at the instance of 6'^ and respondents and grant such other relief or reliefs ”

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner is present while^he submitted that at the time of admission on 24.10.2014, learned Government Pleader stated that the 6^^ respondentfather of the petitioner approached the respondent-police^and requested for conducting counselling. It is only for that purpose, the Police Constable went to the residence of the petitioner. Further, the allegations of harassing etc. are denied.

¶31

¶32

In view of the same, this Court directed to file a counter-affidavit by the respondents. Therefore, the^matteris listed for hearing the respondents’ counsel.

¶33

As per the directions of this Court, the 5^^ respondent filed counter-affidavit. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home also produced instructions of the 5^^ respondent-inspector of Police of II Town Police Station, Hindupur, Anantapur District, wherein it was stated^thatat the request of 6* respondent-father of the petitioner only. this respondent went to their house and counselled the petitioner as an elderly person and also advised the parents of the petitioner not to harass her. This respondent never interfered with right to life and personal liberty of the petitioner at the instance of 6* and 7* respondents, at any point of time and he has not taken any action against^the petitioner as well as against one Dasari Obulesu, with^whom the petitioner developed illusion and attraction, as such, all the allegations made against him are false and baseless. Hence, prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

¶34

¶35

So, in view of the above submissions made in the written instructions as well as in the counter-affidavit,

¶36

nothing survives in the writ petition for further adjudication.

¶37

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as^to

¶38

costs.

¶39

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending,

¶40

shall stands closed.

¶41

SDI- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to Sri N. V.Anantha Krishna, Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

One CC to Sri Mynam Bhaskar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies.

ssb MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED: 09/01/2024

ORDER

WP.No.30089 of 2014

O 0>i
r XL
8
"'tSsiS

CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Dubla Bhanupriya, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dubla Bhanupriya, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Galla Ramaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mukku Manikyala Rao at Maniyya, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary to

Bandlamudi Bindu, Vs The Principal Secretary

Pujari Mahanandi S/o Pujari Thayanna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Sri Rayala Raja Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

A.Subba Ramanujamma,Guntur Dist,Andanot Vs Govt.of Ap,Prl.Scy,Home,Hyd,and 3