Dismissed

B. Janaka Sankar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Mar 2024WP/42848/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Andhra Pradesh Special Original Jurisdiction heard a writ petition challenging police summoning laws without registered crimes. The court dismissed the writ petition as infructurious based on counsel's submission without detailed reasoning.

What did the court decide?

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

B. Janaka Sankar, Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR 'T PRESENT -C THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO^^g^ V

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO: 42848 OF 2015

¶4

Between:

¶5

B. Janaka Sankar, S/o. B. Thirupathaiah, Aged about 27 years, Occ UnEmployee, R/o. Door No. 5-102, Ankireddy Palle Village, Kolimgundia Mandal Kurnool District

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

AND

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal, Secretary, Home department. Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District

¶10

The Circle Inspector of Police, Koilakuntia of Kurnool District

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

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, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No. 3 in calling the petitioner to their police station every day and made to sit over in his police station without there being any crime registered against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No. 3 not to call the petitioner to his police station without there being any crime registered against the petitioner and made to sit in the police station and not to interfere with the personal life of the petitioner

¶13

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 55240 OF 20151

¶14

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 direct the respondents No. 3 not to call the petitioner to his police station without there being any crime registered against the petitioner and made to sit in the police station pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Hon'ble court

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G M SWAMULU Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶16

The Court made the following: Order

¶17

APHC010024652015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶18

[3310]

¶19

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO: 42848/2015

¶23

Between:

¶24

l.B. JANAKA SANKAR, S/0. B. THIRUPATHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: UN-EMPIOYEE, R/0. DOOR NO. 5-102, ANKIREDDY PALLE VILLAGE, KOLIMGUNDLA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT

¶25

...PETITIONER

¶26

AND

¶27

l.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD.

¶28

2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KURNOOL KURNOOL DISTRICT,

¶29

3.THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOILAKUNTLA OF KURNOOL DISTRICT.

¶30

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶31

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,or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No. 3 in calling the petitioner to their police station every^dayand made to sit over in his police station without there^beingany crime registered against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No. 3 not to call the petitioner to his police station without there being any crime registered against the petitioner^and made to sit in the police station and not to interfere^withthe personal life of the petitioner.

¶32

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶34

l.G M SWAMULU

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent(S): l.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶36

The Court made the following:

¶37

Sri G.M.Swamulu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and it has become infructuous and hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶38

Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition ISi

¶39

dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

¶40

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

¶41

Sd/- M PADMALATHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SE ^TfON OFFICER

One CC to SRI G M SWAMULU Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME (AP), High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies

gsg

HIGH COURT

DATED: 06/03/2024

ORDER

WP.No.42848 of 2015

OV
i ^ 2 0 DEC 2C2'» m
\ o tfi
^ Current Section

¶54

DISMISSED WP AS INFRACTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

B. Janaka Sankar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Janaka Sankar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veerapalli Eswaraiah, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Kudipudi Satyanarayana, Wg District Vs Prl. Secretary, Home Dept., Hyd and 4 Others

Nagulapalem Gram Panchayath, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Sumar Ali Khan S/o Late P.Mahammad Ali Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.A. Aziz Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary

Peyyala Anthony Kamalamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh