Disposed¶34

M/s. Al Sami Agro Products Pvt, Ltd., v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Nov 2025WP/4890/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of mandamus; police inaction; complaint against office-bearers of Lorry Owners Association, Kathipudi (private individuals); maintainability of writ against private parties raised by AGP for Home; petition disposed without merits; liberty to pursue remedies before appropriate forum; Article 226, Articles 14 and 21 Constitution of India; W.P. No. 4890/2024; AP High Court, Amaravati; Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa; 20.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; Petitioner left at liberty to work out remedies before appropriate forum in accordance with law; no order as to costs. ¶34

M/s. Al Sami Agro Products Pvt, Ltd., Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; Petitioner left at liberty to work out remedies before appropriate forum in accordance with law; no order as to costs.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus lies to declare the inaction of police Respondents 4 to 6 (SHO, Annavaram PS; Circle Inspector, Pathipadu; DSP, Peddapuram) in initiating action against Respondents 2 and 3 (President and Secretary, Lorry Owners Association, Kathipudi - private individuals) illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21. +1 more

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Without adjudicating the merits or expressly ruling on maintainability, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition considering the submissions made, leaving the Petitioner at liberty to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, with no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed as a sequel.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Amaravati), WRIT PETITION No. 4890/2024, decided 20.11.2025 by Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa. The petitioner company (Al Sami Agro Products Pvt. Ltd.) sought a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of police Respondents 4 to 6 (Station House Officer, Annavaram P.S.; Circle Inspector, Pathipadu; District Superintendent of Police, Peddapuram) in initiating action against Respondents 2 and 3 (President and Secretary, Lorry Owners Association, Kathipudi - private individuals) illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Sri V. Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted that since the relief claimed was against private individuals the writ was not maintainable and it may be disposed of; Ms. Sangeetha (for counsel for the petitioner) sought appropriate orders. Considering the submissions, the Court disposed of the petition without deciding the merits, leaving the petitioner liberty to work out remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

¶1

[3396]

¶2

APHC010082892024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶6

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶9

WRIT PETITION No. 4890/2024

¶10

Between:

¶11

M/S. AL SAMI AGRO PRODUCTS PVT, LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ABDUL SALAM, S/O ABDUL ISMAIL, 45-1-13/1, GOREKSHANAPETA, NEAR BSSB SCHOOL BAIPASS ROAD, RAJAHMUNDRY,EAST GODAVARI, ANDHRAPRADESH-533101.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

THE PRESIDENT, LORRY OWNERS, ASSOCIATION, KATHIPUUDI, EASTGODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH-533444.

¶16

THE SECRETARY, LORRY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, KATHIPUUDI, EASTGODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH-533444.

¶17

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANNAVARAM P,S, ANNAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P.

¶18

CIRCLE INSPECTOR, PATHIPADU, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶19

DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PEDDAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.G N V PULLA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR HOME

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

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

¶28

the following prayer for:

¶29

“.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents No. 4 to 6 and initiating action against Respondents 2 and 3 is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to abdication of statutory duties cast up on them and also violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently

¶30

¶31

to direct the respondents 4 to 6 against the respondents 2 and 3 to safe guard to my business in the hands of R2 and R3.”

¶32

2. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would submit that, since the relief claimed in the present petition is against the private individuals, the writ is not maintainable and the same may be disposed of.

¶33

3. Ms.Sangeetha, learned counsel representing Sri G.N.V.Pulla rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶34

4. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, Petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies before appropriate forum in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

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

¶36

________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶37

Date:20.11.2025 Dinesh

¶38

¶39

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶40

W.P.No.4890 of 2024

¶41

Dt.20.11.2025

¶42

Dinesh

M/s. Al Sami Agro Products Pvt, Ltd., v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Al Sami Agro Products Pvt, Ltd., 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

Kadambari Srinivas @ K. Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bonthu Sridevi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

PaIla Jagannadha Rao, S/o. late Poli Naidu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Chalamala Satyanarayana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Hitha Sri Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Narapinni Chandra Shekar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh