Jampana Rambadhra Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

JAMPANA RAMBADHRA RAJU, S/O JAMPANA DHARMARAJU , AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,OCCUPATION. BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.204,SRI MANIKANTA TOWERS, RAVULAPALEM MANDALAM, RAVULAPALEM ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI. GUNTUR DISTRICT.522237

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DR.BR.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.533201

¶14

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTHAPETA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.533201

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAVULAPALEM POLICE STATION, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 533201

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

2

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.GUMMADI RAWNS SOLOMON

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

1.GP FOR HOME

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶23

The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶24

“…to Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i.Declaring the action of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in failing to act upon the petitioner's written and registered representations dated 25-122025 and 31-12-2025 relating to the continuous physical obstruction and wrongful restraint of the petitioner's vehicle in the common parking area of the building situated at Flat No. 204, Sri Manikanta Towers, Ravulapalemas illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India ii.Directing the respondent police authorities to perform their statutory duty by taking appropriate action in accordance with law to remove the physical obstruction and prevent any further intimidation or interference with the petitioner's registered easementary rights to the common parking area and iii) Pass…”

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner and learned Assistant

¶26

Government Pleader.

¶27

Mr. Gummadi Paramathma, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that he had submitted two representations to the respondent police but the respondent police are not considering his representations.

¶28

Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the police have not received their representations. However, after the filing of the writ petition, the respondent police conducted a preliminary enquiry and observed that the dispute regarding car parking in the cellar of the apartment is pending between the petitioner and the respondents, which is civil in nature, and that no evidence has been produced by the petitioner to proceed further in this case.

¶29

3

¶30

Be that as it may, the Petitioner has got alternative efficacious remedy under Section 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ / Section 210 read with 223 of ‘the BNSS’ when the complaint is not considered by the Respondent Police.

¶31

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate/Special Judge by way of filing a complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ / Section 210 read with 223 of ‘the BNSS’.

¶32

On filing of such private complaint by the Petitioner before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate/Special Judge, the learned Magistrate/Special Judge is directed to bestow attention to the same and deal with the complaint in accordance with law.

¶33