Petitioners sought police protection and action on their report alleging inaction by police officials. Counsel submitted the cause did not survive. The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, with no order as to 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 :: AMARAVATl
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
.-.iA THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY .2 f; TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 41202 OF 2014
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not taking action on the report dt.12.11.2014 lodged by the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to give protection to the property and lives of the petitioners.
LA. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 51584 OF 9ni4|
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i m support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to give protection to the property and lives of the petitioners, pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI D. PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER
[ 3310 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 41202 OF 2014
Between:
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issueaWrit, order or direction more particularly one in the natureofWrit of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents2to5 in not taking action on the report dt.12.11.2014 lodgedby the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and consequentlydirect
2
the respondents 2 to 4 to give protection to the and lives of the petitioners and pass property
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI REDDY ^ D PURNACHANDRA
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following:
Mr.I.M.S.Prakash, learned counsel representing on behalf of Mr.D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and it has become infructuous and hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending.
shall stands closed.
/
To,
SD/- P.U.V.BHASKARA RAO assistant //TRUE COPY// gistrar U
SECTION OFFICER
ssb
HIGH COURT
DATED:15/02/2024
ORDER
WP.No.41202 of 2014
DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survived, given the petitioners' submission that the cause no longer survives.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chillakuru Indiramma
Adireddy Siva Kumari
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department
The Station House Officer, Dakkili Police Station
The Circle Inspector of Police, Venkatagiri Circle
The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gudur
K Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
