Dismissed¶31

Mareddy Ravindranath Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2025WP/494/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; W.P. No. 494 of 2020 (diary APHC010005572020); decided 10-09-2025; Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa; petitioner Mareddy Ravindranath Reddy @ B.Tech Ravi, MLA/MLC security cover; personal security officers; 1+1 PSOs versus 2+2 gunmen; proceedings No.20/RI-DSW/KDP/2019 dated 18.06.2019; Superintendent of Police Kadapa; DGP and Intelligence AP; G.O.Rt.No.655 Home (SC-B) Dept. dated 13.03.1997; Article 226 writ of mandamus; Section 151 CPC interim application; dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

On the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the relief sought had become infructuous, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs. ¶31

Mareddy Ravindranath Reddy Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

[3396]

¶2

APHC010005572020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 494/2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

MAREDDY RAVINDRANATH REDDY, @ B.TECH RAVI, S/O. MAREDDY KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. CURRENTLY SERVING AS MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF ANDHRA PRADESH LEGISLATURE, R/O.4/34A, KASANUR, SIMHADRIPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI.

¶14

THE ADDL DIRECTOR OF GENERAL OF POLICE, INTELLIGENCE, AMARAVATHI.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings.No.20 R1DSVV KDP2019 dated 18.06.2019 passed by the 4th Respondent

¶18

providing only 1+1 personal security officers to the Petitioner instead of 2+2 gunmen as being illegal, arbitrary in violation of G.O.Rt.No.655 Home SC-B Dept. dated 13.03.1997 and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the proceedings No.20/RI-DSW/KDP/2019 dated 18.06.2019 passed by the 4th Respondent providing only1+1 personal security officers to the Petitioner, and consequently direct the respondents herein to provide 2+2 gunmen as security to the Petitioner

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶20

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 to direct the 4^th Respondent to provide 2+2 gunmen as personal security to the Petitioner, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition,

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.N ASHWANI KUMAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)

¶25

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 494 of 2020

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:

¶28

“…pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings C.No.20/RI-DSW/KDP/2019 dated 18.06.2019 passed by the 4^th Respondent providing only 1+1 personal security officers to the Petitioner instead of 2+2 gunmen as being illegal arbitrary in violation of G.O.Rt.No.655 Home (SC-B) Dept. dated 13.03.1997 and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the proceedings C.No.20/RIDSW/KDP/2019 dated 18.06.2019 passed by the 4^th Respondent providing only 1+1 personal security officers to the Petitioner and consequently direct the respondents herein to provide 2+2 gunmen as security to the Petitioner and pass.…”

¶29

When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petition may be disposed of, since the relief has become infructuous in this matter.

¶30