Dismissed¶¶30

Cherukuri Venkateswara Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Feb 2026WP/19953/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution; no representation despite opportunities; Article 226 mandamus; police inaction in registering crime on complaint dated 17.01.2020; representation dated 13/17-10-2020 not considered; Karlapalem Police Station; Superintendent of Police Guntur; Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; oldest matter on roster; APHC010301342020; decided 17.02.2026 by Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao.

What did the court decide?

The case pertains to the year 2020 and is one of the oldest matters pending on the roster; despite sufficient opportunities granted, there was no representation for the petitioner, so the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. ¶¶29

Cherukuri Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of respondent No.2 in considering the petitioner's representation dated 13/17-10-2020 and in not issuing suitable instruction to respondent No.4 Police Station to register a crime on the complaint dated 17.01.2020 is illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, warranting a writ of mandamus.

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

¶¶29

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs.ratio¶¶30
As a sequel to the dismissal, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.ratio¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction) — Writ Petition No. 19953 of 2020, Cherukuri Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, 17.02.2026): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought a writ of mandamus declaring illegal the inaction of respondent No.2 (Superintendent of Police, Guntur District) in considering the petitioner's representation dated 13/17-10-2020, and a consequential direction to respondent No.4 (Station House Officer, Karlapalem Police Station) to register a crime on the petitioner's complaint dated 17.01.2020, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court recorded that there was no representation for the petitioner despite sufficient opportunities, the matter being one of the oldest pending on the roster, and dismissed the Writ Petition for non-prosecution with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions were directed to stand closed. The merits of the grievance were not adjudicated.

¶1

¶2

APHC010301342020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3521]

¶6

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 19953/2020

¶9

Between:

¶10

CHERUKURI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O.VENKATA SUBBA RAO, AGE 50 ADDRESS R/O.PERALI VILLAGE,KARLPALEM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. S.P. OFFICE, COLLECTORATE PREMISES. GUNTUR CITY.

¶15

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, , DY. S.P. OFFICE, BAPATLA GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KARLAPALEM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY IT S CIRCLE INSPECTOR, KARLAPALEM, VILLAG AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

¶22

1.GP FOR HOME

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶24

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶25

India seeking the following relief:-

¶26

“…to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the in action on the part of the respondent No.2 of the Writ Petition in considering the representation of the petitioner dated 13/17-10-2020 and to issue suitable instruction to the Respondent No.4 Police Station in registering the Crime basing upon the complaint dated 17.01.2020 of the petitioner is therefore highly illegal improper unjust arbitrary and in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art 14, 16 of the constitution of India and as a consequential direction to direct the office of the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 13/17-10-2020 and to issue suitable instruction to the Respondent No 4 Police Station in registering the Crime basing upon the complaint dated 17.01.2020 of the Petitioner and to pass other order(s)….”

¶27

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶28

The case pertains to the year 2020 and is one of the oldest matters

¶29

pending on the roster. Inspite of sufficient opportunities granted, there is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶30