Disposed¶32

Langappa v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Nov 2025WP/915/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge AP High Court (Amaravati) writ disposal, 17.11.2025. Keywords: writ of mandamus; police inaction on SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 complaint dated 05.10.2021; preliminary enquiry found allegations false; FIR not registered; alleged police harassment; Articles 14 and 21; Article 226; Anantapur District; Parigi Mandal; liberty to approach appropriate forum; disposed without costs.

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; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. ¶32

Langappa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner granted liberty to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of the respondent police in taking action on the Petitioner's complaint dated 05.10.2021, made under the provisions of the SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989, together with the alleged harassment of the Petitioner, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, warranting a writ of mandamus.

¶26

Court's answer

Considering the submissions of both sides, the Writ Petition is disposed of; the Petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 915/2022 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, decided 17.11.2025, Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Langappa, an agriculturist coolie of Beechiganipalli village, Parigi Mandal, Anantapur District, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring illegal, arbitrary and unjust the inaction of respondent police in acting on his complaint dated 05.10.2021, said to have been made under the provisions of the SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989, and the further action of police authorities in harassing him, as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home (Sri V. Farooq) submitted that a preliminary enquiry based on the complaint revealed the allegations to be false, and hence no case was registered. Without entering into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, leaving the Petitioner at liberty to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, with no order as to costs, and closed miscellaneous petitions, if any.

¶1

[3396]

¶2

APHC010008922022

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 915/2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

LANGAPPA, S/O. LATE SEEMANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTUR COOLI, R/ O. DOOR NO.1-58, BEECHIGANIPALLI VILLAGE, PARIGI MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, A.P.,

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, , ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.,

¶15

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, , PENUKONDA DIVISION, PENUKONDA, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT

¶16

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT

¶17

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PARIGI POLICE STATION, PARIGI MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.P NARAHARI BABU

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶22

1.GP FOR HOME

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

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

¶26

“.... writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent police in taking action on the petitioner compliant dated 05.10.2021 though complaint made under the provisions of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 and further action of the police authorities in harassing the petitioner

¶27

¶28

to withdraw the compliant made by her as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Articles 14, and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

¶29

2. Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit

¶30

that the Police are not taking any action on the complaint given by the Petitioner.

¶31

3. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that, based on the complaint dated 05.10.2021 given by the Petitioner, preliminary enquiry was conducted and the same reveals that the allegations leveled by the Petitioner are false. As such, the Police have not registered any case based on the said complaint.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Date:17.11.2025 Dinesh

¶35

________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶36

¶37

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶38

W.P.No.915 of 2022

¶39