Munnam Venkata Nageswara Reddy Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Munnam Venkata Nageswara Reddy Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondent No.3 (SHO, Chinaganjam Police Station) not to call the petitioner henceforth to the police station at the behest of anti-social elements and not to interfere with the civil disputes between the parties; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent No.3 (Station House Officer, Chinaganjam Police Station) in frequently summoning the petitioner to the police station, including the incident of the previous week, and interfering with civil disputes at the behest of anti-social elements is illegal and unconstitutional, warranting a writ of mandamus and a direction not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession of land in Pedaganjam Village.

Court's answer

On the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 not to call the petitioner henceforth to the police station at the behest of anti-social elements and not to interfere with the civil disputes between the parties.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao) filed by an agriculturist of Pedaganjam Village, Chinaganjam Mandal, Prakasam District, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring that the Station House Officer, Chinaganjam Police Station (respondent No.3) frequently summoned him to the police station and interfered with civil disputes at the behest of anti-social elements, and seeking a direction that respondents 2 and 3 not interfere with his peaceful possession of land. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted on written instructions that no representation had been received from or against the petitioner, no cases were registered against him, and an enquiry conducted after filing of the writ petition showed the matter to be purely civil, with no summons or interference. Disposing of the petition, the Court directed respondent No.3 not to call the petitioner henceforth to the police station at the behest of anti-social elements and not to interfere with the civil disputes between the parties. No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

[3521]

APHC010092162026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5389/2026

Between:

MUNNAM VENKATA NAGESWARA REDDY, S/O KRISHNAMURTHY REDDY, AGED ABOUT _ YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O PEDAGANJAM VILLAGE, CHINAGANJAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238.

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE - 523002.

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHINAGANJAM POLICE STATION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523135.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

N RAVI PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

GP FOR HOME

2

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.5389 of 2026 Dated 03.03.2026

The Court made the following:

ORDER :

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

India seeking the following relief:-

<…to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in frequently summoning the Petitioner to the Police Station including the incident last week and interfering with civil disputes at the behest of anti social elements as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioners peaceful possession of the land in Pedaganjam Village and to pass ….=

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

Mr. B. Surya Chandra, learned counsel representing Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent No.3 is frequently summoning the petitioner to the police station, in view of the incident that occurred last week, and is interfering with the civil disputes at the behest of anti-social elements.

Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that, as per the records of respondent No.3, no representation was received from the petitioner or against the petitioner, and no cases are registered against the petitioner. It is further submitted that, after receipt of the present Writ Petition, respondent No.3 conducted an enquiry and it came to light that the matter is purely related to a civil issue. Hence, respondent No.3 has never interfered with the civil issue. It is further

3

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.5389 of 2026 Dated 03.03.2026

submitted that the petitioner was neither summoned to the police station nor interfered with in respect of his civil issue.

Considering the above submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.3 not to call the petitioner henceforth to the police station at the behest of anti-social elements and not to interfere with the civil disputes between the parties.

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

Date: 03.03.2026 RSI

4

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.5389 of 2026 Dated 03.03.2026

121

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 5389 of 2026

Date: 03.03.2026 RSI