Disposed¶16

Manchukonda Ramakrishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Jun 2026WP/15266/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police interference in civil dispute; writ of mandamus Visakhapatnam; Pre-litigation Counsel Forum PLCF Petition No.1226/25 dated 06.10.2025; O.S.No.314 of 2026 specific performance Principal Junior Civil Judge Visakhapatnam; police cannot summon parties in civil dispute; PLCF notice served through Police; Articles 14, 19(1), 21, 300-A Constitution of India; respondents 3 and 4 restrained from interfering; WRIT PETITION No.15266 of 2026; A. Hari Haranadha Sarma; disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of; direction issued to respondents 3 and 4 not to interfere in the civil litigation pending between the parties; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. ¶16

Manchukonda Ramakrishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition disposed of; direction issued to respondents 3 and 4 not to interfere in the civil litigation pending between the parties; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondents 3 and 4 in interfering with the petitioner's civil dispute regarding the property situated at A.S.R. Nagar, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam (subject matter of O.S. No.314 of 2026) is illegal and warrants a mandamus restraining further interference. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

Since the matter is sub-judice before the Court, the Pre-litigation Counselling Forum, Visakhapatnam City is not entitled to entertain the petition.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The PLCF issued notice to the parties through the Police, directing parties to appear before the Forum; thus, police interference is evident.

¶9

Key takeaways

This Court finds it necessary to issue appropriate directions restraining interference with the subject matter covered by civil litigation.ratio¶9
Police are not competent to summon the parties in respect of a civil dispute.ratio¶11
The Pre-litigation Counseling Forum, Visakhapatnam City summons the parties without referring to any specific nature of dispute in the notice.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-Judge disposal (A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.) of Writ Petition No.15266 of 2026 seeking mandamus against police interference in a pending civil dispute. The petitioner, who had agreed to purchase House No.50-1-59/3, A.S.R. Nagar, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam and has a pending specific-performance suit (O.S.No.314 of 2026, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam), was repeatedly summoned to the Police Station on respondent No.5's complaint before the Pre-litigation Counsel Forum (PLCF), Visakhapatnam City (Petition No.1226/25, dt. 06.10.2025). Holding: (i) as the matter is sub judice, the PLCF is not entitled to entertain the petition; (ii) notice issued through the Police evidences police interference; (iii) police are not competent to summon parties in respect of a civil dispute; (iv) PLCF notices omit the specific nature of the dispute and compel appearance with all documentary evidence. The Court directed respondents 3 and 4 not to interfere in the civil litigation pending between the parties and disposed of the writ with no order as to costs. Articles 14, 19(1), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution invoked.

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.15266 of 2026

¶3

ORDER : -

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 3 and 4 in interfering with civil dispute regarding the property of the petitioner situated in A.S.R. Nagar, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, subject matter of the Suit in O.S. No.314 of 2026 pending before the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam as illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles of 14, 19 (1), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequential direction to the respondents Nos.3 and 4 not to interfere with the civil disputes.

¶5

The contention of the writ petitioner is that the subject matter of the litigation i.e., House No.50-1-59/3, A.S.R. Nagar, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam, belongs to one M. Venkta Jagga Rao Harsha and Manchukonda Hiranya and their family members. The petitioner has entered into an agreement with them to purchase the subject property. The respondent No.5 is no way concerned with the same, when there is interference and an attempt to evict the petitioner, he filed a suit in O.S.No.314 of 2026 on the file of Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for specific performance. During the pendency of the Suit, the writ petitioner is called to Police Station, on the strength of a complaint lodged by the respondent No.5 before the Pre-litigation Counsel Forum (PLCF), Visakhapatnam City vide Petition No.1226/25, dated

¶6

¶7

06.10.2025, and he was directed to get the order from Civil Court or any other authority, in favour of the petitioner and he has been repeatedly summoning to Police Station. Thus, aggrieved. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶8

3. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

¶9

4. It is evident from the material enclosed that the petitioner has submitted an explanation stating that the dispute is pending for adjudication before a competent Civil Court having r equisite territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction . Since the matter is sub-judice before the Court, the Pre-litigation Counselling Forum, Visakhapatnam City is not entitled to entertain the petition. It is further seen from the material enclosed that, Pre-litigation Counseling Forum, Visakhapatnam City has issued a notice to the parties through the Police, directing parties to appear before the Forum. Thus, police interference is evident. Therefore, this Court finds it necessary to issue appropriate directions restraining interference with the subject matter covered by civil litigation.

¶10

5. It is also relevant to note that,

¶11

1) Police are not competent to summon the parties in respect of a civil dispute.

¶12

2) The Pre-litigation Counseling Forum, Visakhapatnam City summons the parties without referring to any specific nature of dispute in the notice.

¶13

¶14

3) The direction contained in the notice requiring the parties to appear before the Forum along with all documentary evidence and proof relating to the dispute.

¶15

6. Above aspects raise larger concerns regarding the parameters, limits and legal basis for such enquiries or counselling proceedings conducted with police involvement, as to the transparency, sanctity and legal validity of the process adopted. H ence, a direction is issued to the respondents 3 and 4 not to interfere in the civil litigation pending between the parties.

¶16

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶18

____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J

¶19

Date: 11 .06.2026 Pnr/KA

Manchukonda Ramakrishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manchukonda Ramakrishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Vallepu Ankaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Polavarapu Durga Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kandukuri Srinivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Kovvuri Nagamani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Puchakayala Muni Sekhar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bukke Venkataramana Naik Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh