Gajula Ganesh Vishnu Kumar Vs the State of Ap

GAJULA GANESH VISHNU KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O SUBBA RAO (LATE), R/O 26-15-1, VUNDAVALLI VARI STREET, GANDHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R COMMISSIONERATE, A.P. 520003CELL NO 9494211111

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GAUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 522 238

¶15

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 522503

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NTR COMMISSIONERATE, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520002

¶17

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MACHAVARAM POLICE STATION, NTR DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH- 520008

¶18

THE AUTHORIZED BANK OFFICER, BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, ZONAL OFFICE, R/O 1ST FLOOR. INFINITY PLAZA, D.NO. 59A-21-

¶19

2

¶20

7/3, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, PATAMATA, VIJAYAWADA, NTR COMMISSIONERATE, A.P520 007, E-MAIL [email protected]

¶21

THE BRANCH MANAGER BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, D.NO. 27-1675, BESANT ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR COMMISSIONERATE,A.P520 002, E-MAIL ID- [email protected]

¶22

M/S MAGNOVA EXIM PVT LTD, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR KIRAN KUMAR ADDEPALLI, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS, GROUND AND FIRST FLOOR, D.NO. 59-5-11/1, RING ROAD, 4TH LANE, BESIDE GOVT ITI, ASHOK NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH- 520 010

¶23

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶24

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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent no.4 as illegal and against to Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and a) to direct the police authorities to take necessary action on the report given by the petitioner and Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.PALLAGANI RAVI BABU

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR HOME

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

3

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 5488/2026

¶33

ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

¶34

This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the police to take necessary action on the report lodged by the petitioner.

¶35

2. Heard Sri Pallagani Ravi Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶36

3. The grievance of the writ petitioner in this writ petition is that in a Securitization Application filed by him under section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act’) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Tribunal has passed an interim order directing the respondent Bank not to confirm the sale and not to issue sale certificate. But the Bank authorities are repeatedly attempting to forcibly enter the subject property and interfere with the possession of the property of the petitioner and in view of the same that the petitioner has lodged a report with the police i.e. the Station House Officer of Machavaram Police Station, on 21.02.2026 and they did not take any action

¶37

4

¶38

on his report. Therefore, he sought for Mandamus directing the police to take an action on his report. In other words he is praying to direct the police to register the report lodged before the police.

¶39

4. If the grievance of the writ petitioner is that the respondents have committed an offence and that he has lodged a report with the police relating to a cognizable offence and that the police failed to register the report and take any action on it, then his remedy lies by way of resorting the procedure prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code and the present Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The said legal position has been dealt with the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others¹

¶40

The contention of the writ petitioner that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Radha Krishna Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors ., in Civil Appeal No.1155 of 2021 (arising out of SLP(C) No.1688 of 2021), the fact that the alternative remedy is available to the parties is not a ground to decline to entertain the writ petition, is devoid of merit and the said judgment has no application to the present facts of the case. He has to follow the procedure contemplated under law as held in Sakiri Vasu’s case (supra) by the Apex Court.

¶41

1 (2008) 2 SCC 409

¶42

5

¶43

5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to follow the procedure prescribed under law for redressal of his grievance. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand

¶45

closed.

¶46

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶47

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶48

Date: 26.02.2026 KA

¶49

6