Dismissed¶¶66

V Sujatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Feb 2026WP/10386/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-prosecution dismissal of a 2019 Andhra Pradesh writ petition (W.P. No.10386 of 2019, decided 11.02.2026, Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi) that sought police protection via mandamus under Article 226, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 21 by respondents 2 to 5 (SP, DSP, SHOs of YSR Kadapa/Proddatur) against private respondents 6 to 26 (local traders/jewellers and individuals); interim application IA No.1 of 2019 under Section 151 CPC for protection also closed as sequel. No cases cited; no dissent; no monetary relief. Useful for: dismissal for non-prosecution procedure; caption 'for dismissal'; absence of petitioner/counsel appearance.

What did the court decide?

None. Writ Petition dismissed for non-prosecution; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications (including IA No.1 of 2019) directed to stand closed. ¶¶66

V Sujatha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. Writ Petition dismissed for non-prosecution; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications (including IA No.1 of 2019) directed to stand closed.

¶¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondents 2 to 5 (SP, DSP and SHOs, YSR Kadapa/Proddatur) in not providing police protection to the petitioners and their family members against respondents 6 to 26 or anybody is illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and whether a mandamus should issue directing respondents 2 to 5 to provide such police protection.

¶¶50

Ratio / Principle

Since none appeared for the writ petitioners either physically or through video conference although the matter was listed under the caption 'for dismissal', and there was no representation on previous adjournments either, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs.

¶¶66

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the dismissal, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.ratio¶¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 10386 of 2019, decided 11.02.2026 by B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J. — Ten petitioners of Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District (including three minors represented by the fifth petitioner) sought a mandamus under Article 226 declaring the action of respondents 2 to 5 (Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Station House Officers, Proddatur) in not providing police protection against private respondents 6 to 26 illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and consequential directions to provide such protection; IA No.1 of 2019 under Section 151 CPC sought interim protection pending disposal. On the date of hearing none appeared for the writ petitioners physically or through video conference though the matter was listed under the caption 'for dismissal', there having been no representation on previous adjournments either. HOLDING: The Writ Petition was DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION, with no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications were directed to stand closed. The merits of the police-protection claim were not adjudicated.

¶1

APHC010234142019

¶2

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

¶3

[3368]

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 10386/2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

V SUJATHA, W/O V.RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶10

V.LAKSHMI PRASANNA, D/O V.RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶11

V.SRINIVASULU, S/O V.RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,

¶12

V.VENKATESH, S/O V.RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,

¶13

V.GOPAL, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶14

V.VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O V.GOPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶15

V.DEEPTHI, D/O V.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,

¶16

V.UDAY, S/O V.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,

¶17

V.TARUN, S/O V.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, (PETITIONERS 7 TO 9 ARE MINORS, BEING REP.BY THEIR FATHER THE 5TH PETITIONER HEREIN)

¶18

V.RAMA LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF D.NO.13/438, VIVEKANANDA COLONY, PRODDATUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

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

¶23

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT AT KADAPA.

¶24

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PRODDATUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶25

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, I TOWN POLICE STATION, PRODDATUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶26

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, II TOWN POLICE STATION, PRODDATUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

¶27

VENKATA RAMANA REDDY, R/O KANCHANNAGARIPALLI VILLAGE, KAMALAPURAM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶28

BOGHA BALAVEERAIAH, C/O VAMSI JEWELLARS, SHOP NO.48, NS COMPLEX, RAJA BATA VEEDHI, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶29

P VEERA PRATHAP NAIDU, PRATHAP JEWELLARIES, SHOP NO.51, NS COMPLEX, RAJA BATA VEEDHI, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶30

KUNAPURI RAMU MAIN BAZAR, AMMAVARI SHALA VEEDHI, PULIVENDULA, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶31

TALLAM SUBBARAO, TALLAM SRI KAVYA JEWELLARS, OLD MARKET, MAIN BAZAR, AMMAVARI SAVALI VEEDHI, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶32

GURRAM SUBBAIAH, SRI MARKANDEYA JEWELLARIES, OLD MARKET, MAIN BAZAR, AMMAVARI SAVALI VEEDHI, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶33

NARASIMHULU, CHINNA VENTHULA VILLAGE, JAMMALAMADUGU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶34

VISHNU NARAYANA MONDEM, PUTTA VEEDHI, NEAR ARTS COLLEGE, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶35

VELPULA OBULESH YADAV, TEACHER, GANDHI ROAD, NEAR STATE BANK OF INDIA, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶36

¶37

ONTIGARI RAMAIAH, RTPP ROAD, CHILAMAKURU, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, KADAPA DIST.

¶38

ONTIGARI RAMESH, KADAPA ROAD, CHILAMAKURU, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, KADAPA DIST.

¶39

USARAVELLA VASU, RTPP ROAD, DHARMAL, YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL, KADAPA DIST.

¶40

SARE VASANTH NAIDU, TELUGU GANGA COLONY, BRAHMAMGARI MATAM, KADAPA DIST.

¶41

RAJASEKHAR REDDY, MUDINDLA PALLI VILLAGE, DUVURU MANDAL, KADAPA DIST.

¶42

TANGUTURI RAMU, VINAYAKA NAGAR, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶43

TANGUTURI VEERA NAGESH, VINAYAKA NAGAR, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶44

NARAYANA, VINAYAKANAGAR, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶45

KUNAPURI RAMU, HARI HARA JEWELLARS, ROOM NO.43, NS COMPLEX, RAJA BATA VEEDHI, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶46

HARI, MORTGAGE BUSINESS, KOTA VEEDHI, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶47

U R RAGHAVENDRA, S/O RANGANADHAM, 5/7 LINE, BRODIPET, GUNTUR.

¶48

CHAKALI SAI, 5/6, BRODIPET, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶49

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶50

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 direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not providing police protection to the petitioners and their family members as illegal and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2

¶51

¶52

to 5 to provide police protection to the petitioners from the hands of the respondents 6 to 26 or anybody

¶53

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶54

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 2 to 5 to provide police protection to the petitioners from the hands of the respondents 6 to 26 or anybody, pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass

¶55

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶56

1.P NARASIMHULU

¶57

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶58

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶59

The Court made the following:

¶60

¶61

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

¶62

WRIT PETITION No.10386 OF 2019

¶63

ORDER:

¶64

None appeared for the writ petitioners either physically or through video conference, though the matter is listed under the caption 8for dismissal9. There was no representation for the petitioner on the previous adjournments also.

¶65