Disposed¶33

T. Suseela, v. The State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC4 May 2026WP/12799/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Writ Petition No. 12799 of 2025; Justice Subhendu Samanta; Article 226 Constitution of India; police inaction; non-consideration of representation dated 09-04-2025; Mudivedu Police Station; Rayachoti SP; Madanapalli DSP; Annamayya/Chittoor district; representation deemed insufficient; liberty to file fresh complaint before police; police to act according to law; writ petition disposed of; no costs; Section 151 CPC interim application (IA No. 1 of 2025); civil nature of dispute contended by State.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the police authority with an appropriate complaint, on which the police authority shall take action according to law; miscellaneous applications, if any, closed; no order as to costs. ¶33

T. Suseela, Vs The State of A.P. — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should declare the respondents' inaction in not considering the petitioner's representation dated 09-04-2025 illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to consider that representation.

¶17

Court's answer

The Court found that the petitioner's representation was not sufficient for the police authorities to take action on it.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Instead of issuing the sought mandamus, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to approach the police authority with an appropriate complaint, and held that on such a complaint the police authority shall take action according to law; miscellaneous applications were closed and no order as to costs was made.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction) — Writ Petition No. 12799 of 2025, disposed of on 05.05.2026 by Sri Justice Subhendu Samanta. The petitioner, complaining under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of police inaction on her representation dated 09-04-2025, sought a writ of mandamus declaring the respondents' failure to consider the representation illegal and arbitrary. The Court, having perused the representation, held that it was not sufficient for the police authorities to take action. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested liberty to file an appropriate complaint, while the Assistant Government Pleader for Home contended that the disputes between the parties were civil in nature. The writ petition was disposed of by granting the petitioner liberty to approach the police authority with an appropriate complaint, on which the police authority shall take action according to law. Miscellaneous applications, if any, were directed to stand closed; no order as to costs.

¶1

[3560]

¶2

APHC010252702025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 12799/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

T. SUSEELA,, W/O. T. MALLI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. MATLIVARIPALLI (V), KURABALAKOTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, (NOW ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT).

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, AT RAYACHOTI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, (NOW ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT).

¶14

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, AT MADANAPALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, (NOW ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT).

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUDIVEDU POLICE STATION, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, NOW ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 tomay be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not considering the petitioner's representation Dt.09-04-2025 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation Dt.09-04-2025 and pass

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

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 may be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner's representation Dt.04-09-2025 forthwith pending the Writ Petition, and pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.YANAGUNURU SHASHANK

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR HOME

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION No. 12799 of 2025

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This writ petition is filed against inaction of the police for not taking action in pursuance to the representation of the petitioner dated 09.04.2026.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶29

Perused the said representation. It appears that the instant representation is not sufficient to take action for the police authority.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to file appropriate compliant before the police authority.

¶31

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted written instructions, contending inter alia that the disputes between the parties are civil in nature.

¶32

Having considered all the material, it appears that the petition may be allowed to file specific compliant to the police in respect of any illegal activities conducted by the unofficial respondent.

¶33

Accordingly, this instant writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach police authority with appropriate compliant. On such, the police authority shall take action according to law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

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

¶35

____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

¶36

Dated: 05.05.2026 CVD

T. Suseela, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Suseela, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Noormohammad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

A. Raghunath Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yanamaddi Nagamalleswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Mohammed Ghouse Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gollapalli Ananda Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Lanke Srinivas @ Srinu, Krishna Dt., Vs State of Ap., Rep Pp.