Disposed¶28

D.Manoj Kumar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2025WP/5636/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, W.P. No. 5636 of 2020, decided 11.09.2025 by Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa. Police inaction on complaint dated 10.02.2020; writ of mandamus; Article 226; Lalitha Kumari invoked in prayer only; State contended dispute purely civil; petition disposed with liberty to seek remedy before appropriate forum; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law; no order as to costs. ¶28

D.Manoj Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

[3396]

¶2

APHC010094032020

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 5636/2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

D.MANOJ KUMAR,, S/O LATE VENKATANNA , AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RIO. H.NO.11/13, KALVAGADDAADDE VEEDHI, PAMIDI, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT AT ANANTHAPURAMU.

¶12

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHILAKALAPUDI POLICE STATION, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶13

D V JEEVAN KUMAR, , S/O. VENKANNA, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SY.NO.1303, PAMIDI VILLAGE, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.PILLIX LAW FIRM

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

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

¶22

the following prayer for:

¶23

“.... a issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondentin not acting upon the complaint 10.02.2020 given by the petitioner, as being illegal arbitrary and is in negation of the law declared by the Hontle apex court in the case of LALITHA KUMARI WS STATE OF U.P .”

¶24

¶25

Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would

¶26

submit that the disputes between the parties are purely civil in nature.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶28

In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies before appropriate forum in accordance with law. 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:11.09.2025 ASR

¶32

¶33

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶34

W.P.No.5636 of 2020

¶35