Disposed¶43

Gade Nageswara Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Feb 2026WP/3807/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of mandamus under Article 226 against police interference in a purely civil money dispute; SHO Nallapadu Police Station directed not to call petitioner at behest of private respondents 5 and 6; PGRS petition; personal liberty; Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Articles 14 and 21; Guntur District; disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.4 (Station House Officer, Nallapadu Police Station) not to further call the petitioner at the behest of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in connection with the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and respondent No.5; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶43

Gade Nageswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent No.4, at the instance of respondent Nos.5 and 6, in repeatedly insisting that the petitioner appear before the Police Station and compelling him to yield to their terms in a purely civil money dispute, unlawfully interferes with his personal liberty and is illegal, warranting a writ of mandamus.

¶37

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition, directing respondent No.4 not to further call the petitioner at the behest of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in connection with the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and respondent No.5.

¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), single Judge (Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao), W.P. No. 3807 of 2026, decided 19.02.2026 — An advocate-petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus against the Station House Officer, Nallapadu Police Station (respondent No.4), who, at the instance of private respondents 5 and 6, was allegedly repeatedly insisting that the petitioner appear at the police station and yield to their terms in a purely civil money dispute, allegedly without authority of law, contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and offending Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The learned Assistant Government Pleader (Sri P. Ajay Babu), on written instructions, stated that on a PGRS petition from respondent No.5 the police had summoned both parties once, found a civil dispute, and advised them to resolve it before their elders, denying repeated calls. Considering these submissions, the Court disposed of the petition directing respondent No.4 not to further call the petitioner at the behest of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in connection with the pending civil dispute, with no order as to costs.

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010063592026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3807/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

GADE NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. NAGA MALLESWARA RAO AGED 46 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, R/O. DOOR NO. 2-315, MAIN ROAD, NEAR PANCHAYAT OFFICE, VENKATAPALEM, THULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. -522503

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522238

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR DISTRICT AT GUNTUR. - 522004

¶14

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE, GUNTUR TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522004

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NALLAPADU POLICE STATION, NALLPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522005

¶16

ANCHA RADHIKA, W/O. SEETHARAMAYYA AGED 56 YEARS, OCC HOSEWIFE, R/O. GUDIVADA VILLAGE, TENALI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. -522307

¶17

ANCHA SEETHARAMAYYA, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO AGED 60 YEARS, R/O. GUDIVADA VILLAGE, TENALI MANDAL, GUNTUR

¶18

¶19

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.3807 of 2026 Dated 19.02.2026

¶20

DISTRICT. -522307

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.KISHORE KUMAR KATARI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR HOME

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

¶28

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.3807 of 2026 Dated 19.02.2026

¶29

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 3807 OF 2026

¶31

ORDER :

¶32

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

¶33

India seeking the following relief:-

¶34

“…to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents, particularly the 4^th respondent, who, at the instance of respondents 5 and 6, is repeatedly insisting that petitioner appear before the police station, compelling him to yield to the terms of respondents 5 and 6, and thereby unlawfully interfering with petitioners personal liberty in a purely civil money dispute, without any authority or sanction of law., as illegal, irregular, irrational, contrary to the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents particularly 4^th respondent not to interfere in any manner with petitioner’s personal life and liberty nor call them to the police station and pass….”

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant

¶36

Government Pleader.

¶37

Sri Kishore Kumar Katari, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that at the instance of respondent Nos.5 and 6, respondent No.4 is repeatedly insisting that the petitioner appear before the Police Station and is compelling him to yield to their terms, thereby unlawfully interfering with his personal liberty in a purely civil money dispute.

¶38

Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that upon receipt of a PGRS petition from respondent No.5, respondent No.4 summoned both the petitioner and respondent No.5 to the Police Station, enquired into the matter, and came to know that a civil dispute exists between them. It is further submitted that respondent

¶39

¶40

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.3807 of 2026 Dated 19.02.2026

¶41

No.4 advised them to resolve the dispute before their elders and that the police neither repeatedly called the petitioner to the Police Station nor insisted that he settle the issue.

¶42

Considering the above submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.4 not to further call the petitioner at the behest of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in connection with the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and respondent No.5.

¶43