Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Dasari Rama Lakshmi, Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

Home
Andhra Pradesh HC
2025
Dasari Rama Lakshmi, Vs the State of ApDasari Rama Lakshmi, v. the State of Ap

Disposed¶¶31

Dasari Rama Lakshmi, v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Aug 2025WP/5201/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police non-interference in civil dispute; writ petition closed without merits adjudication. Petitioners Dasari Rama Lakshmi, Batchu Satya Nagabhushanam @ Yesu and Dasari Krishna Satya Manikanta Arnamad v. State of A.P., SP Kakinada, SHO Annavaram PS and Arya Vysya Samkshema Samajarn. Alleged threats to withdraw O.S.No.6 of 2019 (Additional District Judge, Kakinada); representation/complaint dated 04.04.2019 unacted. Article 226 mandamus; IA under Section 151 CPC. Submission of Additional Government Pleader recorded; no costs; W.P. No. 5201/2019; Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi; decided 07.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

The Court closed the writ petition, recording the learned Additional Government Pleader's submission (on written instructions) that the dispute involved is civil in nature and the respondent police will not interfere in such civil dispute; no order as to costs. The matter was disposed of without any adjudication on merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 3rd respondent (SHO, Annavaram Police Station) in interfering with the petitioners' civil dispute and threatening them to withdraw O.S.No.6 of 2019, while failing to act on their representation dated 04.04.2019, is illegal/arbitrary, and whether the respondents should be directed to take action on that representation.

Court's answer

The Court closed the writ petition, recording the learned Additional Government Pleader's submission (on written instructions) that the dispute involved is civil in nature and the respondent police will not interfere in such civil dispute; no order as to costs. The matter was disposed of without any adjudication on merits.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J.), Writ Petition No. 5201 of 2019, decided 07.08.2025: Three residents of A. Annavaram, East Godavari District, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 declaring illegal the action of the SHO, Annavaram Police Station, in interfering with their civil dispute and threatening them to withdraw O.S.No.6 of 2019 (pending before the Additional District Judge, Kakinada) and directing action on their representation dated 04.04.2019; IA No.1 of 2019 under Section 151 CPC sought the same direction. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the State, who, on written instructions, submitted that the dispute is civil in nature and the police will not interfere in it. Recording that submission, the Court closed the writ petition with no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand closed. No finding was rendered on merits.

A

APHC010117592019

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

[3368]

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 5201/2019

Between:

DASARI RAMA LAKSHMI,, W/O PADMASEKHAR, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC. LNDLADY, R/O NO.1-4A, A. ANNAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

BATCHU SATYA NAGABHUSHANAM @ YESU,, S/O SUBBA RAO, AGED 65 YEARS, RIO D.NO. 1-4/1, STATION ROAD, A.ANNAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

DASARI KRISHNA SATYA MANIKANTA ARNAMAD, , S/O HARA GOPAL, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-4, SAI BABA TEMPLE, BUSINESS, R/O A. ANNAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, , KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, , ANNAVARAM POLICE STATION, ANNAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

2

ARYA VYSYA SAMKSHEMA SAMAJARN, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON DASARI GANESH BABU, S/O AYYANNA, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O D. NO.2-52, MARKET STREET, A. ANNAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondents more particularly the 3rd Respondent in interfering with civil disputes and threatening the petitioners to withdraw the suit O.S.No.6 of 2019 filed by the petitioners on the file of 111 Additional District Judge, Kakinada instead of taking action on the representation dated 04.04.2019 of the Petitioners as illegal, highhanded, unconstitutional, deliberate, unwarranted, unsustainable, arbitrary against Law as well as principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to take action on the representation dated 04.04.2019 of the Petitioners and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

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 Respondents to take action on the complaint dated 04.04.2019 submitted by the Petitioners and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.K B RAMANNA DORA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION NO: 5201 of 2019

The Court made the following Order:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Pleader representing the State.

Learned Additional Government Pleader representing the State on written instructions would submit that the dispute involved in the present Writ Petition is of civil in nature and the respondent Police will not interfere in such civil dispute.

Recording the submission made by learned Additional Government Pleader, this Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

Dated: 07.08.2025 PSA

4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

WRIT PETITION NO: 5201 of 2019

Date: 07.08.2025

PSA

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the action of the 3rd respondent (SHO, Annavaram Police Station) in interfering with the petitioners' civil dispute and threatening them to withdraw O.S.No.6 of 2019, while failing to act on their representation dated 04.04.2019, is illegal/arbitrary, and whether the respondents should be directed to take action on that representation.medium confidence¶¶19
The court held
The Court closed the writ petition, recording the learned Additional Government Pleader's submission (on written instructions) that the dispute involved is civil in nature and the respondent police will not interfere in such civil dispute; no order as to costs. The matter was disposed of without any adjudication on merits.ratio¶¶31

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶¶19
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 151¶¶21

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Alleged action of the 3rd respondent (SHO, Annavaram Police Station): interfering with the petitioners' civil dispute and threatening them to withdraw suit O.S.No.6 of 2019 pending on the file of 111 Additional District Judge, Kakinada (as printed), while failing to take action on the petitioners' representation dated 04.04.2019.¶¶19
Prior proceeding
Petitioners filed suit O.S.No.6 of 2019 on the file of 111 Additional District Judge, Kakinada (ordinal as printed).¶¶19
Prior proceeding
Petitioners submitted a representation/complaint dated 04.04.2019 to the respondents; no action was taken on it, prompting the writ petition and IA No.1 of 2019.¶¶21

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Dasari Rama Lakshmi¶¶8
K B Ramanna Dora
petitioner
Batchu Satya Nagabhushanam @ Yesu¶¶9
K B Ramanna Dora
petitioner
Dasari Krishna Satya Manikanta Arnamad¶¶10
K B Ramanna Dora
respondent
The State of AP, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department¶¶13
GP FOR HOME (AP)
respondent
The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada¶¶14
GP FOR HOME (AP)
respondent
The Station House Officer, Annavaram Police Station¶¶15
GP FOR HOME (AP)
respondent
Arya Vysya Samkshema Samajarn, rep. by its authorized person Dasari Ganesh Babu¶¶17

Coram

AI extract

B.V.L.N. Chakravarthiauthor¶¶6

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Andhra Pradesh HC
Decided on: 6 Aug 2025 · August
Registered: 15 Apr 2019
Case no.: WP/5201/2019
CNR: APHC010117592019
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: B V L N Chakravarthi
Disposal: CLOSED NO COSTS
Case type: Writ Petition

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from B V L N Chakravarthi

Ponugoti Jhosup Vs the State of Ap
5 Aug 2025
Ravi Suresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
5 Aug 2025
Neelapu Ramana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
5 Aug 2025
Erugula Mariya Vs State of Ap
6 Aug 2025
Mannuru Malyadri, Vs the State of Ap
6 Aug 2025
Ponnam Hari Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
6 Aug 2025

Cite this judgement

Dasari Rama Lakshmi, v. the State of Ap, WP/5201/2019 (AP), decided on 6 August 2025.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 151

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Alleged action of the 3rd respondent (SHO, Annavaram Police Station): interfering with the petitioners' civil dispute and threatening them to withdraw suit O.S.No.6 of 2019 pending on the file of 111 Additional District Judge, Kakinada (as printed), while failing to take action on the petitioners' representation dated 04.04.2019.
Petitioners filed suit O.S.No.6 of 2019 on the file of 111 Additional District Judge, Kakinada (ordinal as printed).
Petitioners submitted a representation/complaint dated 04.04.2019 to the respondents; no action was taken on it, prompting the writ petition and IA No.1 of 2019.

View full history

Bench / Coram

B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi

Parties & counsel