Disposed¶33

L Radhika v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Nov 2025WP/661/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (Article 226) for mandamus against police inaction; Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram (respondent No.2) not initiating action against Sub-Inspector K Suresh Babu (respondent No.6), I Town Police Station, Guntakal; allegations of illegality, arbitrariness and violation of Articles 14 and 21; reference to interim order dated 07.01.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 of a Coordinate Bench; petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2021; writ petition disposed of with direction to consider representation per governing rules and law; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to look into the Petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2021 and take appropriate steps forthwith according to governing rules and law; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ¶33

L Radhika Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent No.2 in not initiating appropriate action against respondent No.6 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, warranting a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to take necessary action against respondent No.6.

¶30

Court's answer

The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.2 to look into the Petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2021 and take appropriate steps forthwith according to governing rules and law.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa), Writ Petition No. 661/2022, decided 13.11.2025: Petitioner L Radhika filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 (Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram) in not initiating appropriate action against respondent No.6 (K Suresh Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Guntakal) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and seeking a consequential direction to respondent No.2 to take necessary action against respondent No.6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home (Sri V.Farooq) submitted that, in view of the interim order dated 07.01.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench, no further orders were required; learned counsel for the Petitioner sought appropriate orders. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition, directing Respondent No.2 to look into the Petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2021 and take appropriate steps forthwith according to governing rules and law, with no order as to costs.

¶1

[3396]

¶2

APHC010010482022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶6

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶9

WRIT PETITION No. 661/2022

¶10

Between:

¶11

L RADHIKA, W/O L.SHASHIWARDHAN BHOPAL, AGED ABOUT 35YEARS, D.NO. 17/825-A,TLLAK NAGAR, GUNTAKAL TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTAPURAM, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT

¶16

THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, GUNTAKAL TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT

¶17

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GUNTAKAL URBAN, GUNTAKAL TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT

¶18

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, I TOWN POLICE STATION, GUNTAKAL TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶19

K SURESH BABU, SA) NOT KNOWN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, I TOWN POLICE STATION, GUNTAKAL TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶20

SANDEEP REDDY, , S/O NOPT KNOWN, GUNTAKAL TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.P NARASIMHULU

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR HOME

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

“.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in not initiating appropriate action against the 6^th respondent is as illegal, arbitrary and violations of article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to take necessary action against the 6th respondent forthwith.”

¶31

2. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that, in the light of the interim order dated 07.01.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, no further orders are required in this matter.

¶32

3. Sri P.Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶33

4. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Respondent No.2 is directed to look into the representation of the Petitioner dated 12.11.2021 and take appropriate steps forthwith according to governing rules and law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34