Disposed¶28

Balu Naidu Pathakota, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Oct 2025WP/1661/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; W.P.No.1661 of 2021; Balu Naidu Pathakota v. State of Andhra Pradesh & others; decided 06.10.2025 by Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa; Article 226; writ of mandamus; alleged police pressure to settle money/civil dispute; Station House Officer, Tenali Rural Police Station; Articles 14, 19 and 21; no representation for petitioner; Md. Farooq, Assistant Government Pleader for Home; submission that police not interfering in civil disputes; writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the writ petition was disposed of on recording the State's submission that the police are not interfering in the civil disputes between the parties, with no order as to costs. ¶28

Balu Naidu Pathakota, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the writ petition was disposed of on recording the State's submission that the police are not interfering in the civil disputes between the parties, with no order as to costs.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent No.4 (Station House Officer, Tenali Rural Police Station) in pressurizing the petitioner to settle the money/civil dispute with respondent No.5 is arbitrary, illegal and a colourable exercise of power violating Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, warranting a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.4 not to pressurize the petitioner.

¶24

Court's answer

Recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home (Sri Md. Farooq), on instructions, that the police are not interfering in the civil disputes between the parties, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition, with no order as to costs.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

As a sequel to the disposal, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.No.1661 of 2021) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa), decided 06.10.2025. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring that the Station House Officer, Tenali Rural Police Station (respondent No.4) had acted arbitrarily, illegally and in colourable exercise of power by pressurizing him to settle a money/civil dispute with private respondent No.5 (Eada Yaswanth Reddy), allegedly violating Articles 14, 19 and 21, and to direct respondent No.4 not to pressurize him. On the date of hearing there was no representation for the petitioner. Sri Md. Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that the police are not interfering in the civil disputes between the parties. Recording the said submissions, the Court disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs, and closed miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending.

¶1

APHC010023312021

¶2

[3396]

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 1661/2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

BALU NAIDU PATHAKOTA,, S/O.P.SRINIVASASRAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, D.NO.25-3-98, ADAPA VARI STREET, R.AGRAHARAM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶12

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR RURAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶13

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TENALI RURAL POLICE STATION, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

EADA YASWANTH REDDY, S/O.VENKATESWARA REDDY, R/O.KOLLIPARA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶18

1.P V N KIRAN KUMAR

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶20

1.GP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with

¶23

the following prayer for:

¶24

“.... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of the respondent No.4 in pressurizing me to settle the money issue with the respondent No. 5 as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and violate the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No. 4 not to pressurize me to get settle the civil dispute/money dispute with the respondent No.5 .”

¶25

¶26

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶27

Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would submit that the police are not interfering in the civil disputes between the parties.

¶28

Recording the said submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶30

________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶31

Date:06.10.2025 ASR

¶32

¶33

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶34

W.P.No.1661 of 2021

¶35

Dt.06.10.2025

¶36

Asr

Balu Naidu Pathakota, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balu Naidu Pathakota, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satpagiri Grameena Bank Vs The Appellate Authority

Shantanu Kumar Vs the Union of India

Musuluri Suresh Babu, Vs Mannam Venkata Seshaiah

V. Tayamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G Maridamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C. Varun Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh