Thota Venkata Ramaiah Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Thota Venkata Ramaiah Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs, and pending applications, if any, were closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 4th respondent in insisting the petitioner to appear before the 4th respondent Police Station in connection with civil disputes being raised by the 5th respondent, though he is not involved in any offence, and preventing him from attending his works, was illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio / Principle

Having recorded at hearing the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause in the Writ Petition did not survive for adjudication and that the Writ Petition had become infructuous, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition as infructuous, made no order as to costs, and held that pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 8971 of 2024, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, 07.01.2026): Thota Venkata Ramaiah, a cultivator of Kuragallu Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, petitioned under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring that the Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Rural Police Station (4th respondent) had acted illegally, arbitrarily, unjustly and without jurisdiction, in violation of Articles 14 and 21, by insisting that the petitioner appear at the police station over civil disputes raised by Thota Venkata Rathnam (5th respondent) although he was involved in no offence, and by preventing him from attending his works; the petitioner further sought a direction that the respondents not interfere with his day-to-day peaceful life and liberty. At hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause did not survive for adjudication and the petition had become infructuous; the Court recorded the submission and dismissed the Writ Petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs, closing pending applications, if any. The substantive grievance was not adjudicated.

APHC010178562024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3396]

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 8971/2024

Between:

THOTA VENKATA RAMAIAH, S/O. GOPALA RAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.DOOR NO.1-70, NEAR NIRUKONDA DONKA, KURAGALLU VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, A.P.,

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR URBAN DISTRICT, GUNTUR.

THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, , MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANGALAGIRI RURAL POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THOTA VENKATA RATHNAM, W/O. SATHYAVANTHUDU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. NEAR NIRUKONDA DONKA, KURAGALLU VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 action of the 4th respondent in insisting the petitioner to appear before the 4th respondent Police Station in connection with civil disputes being raised by the 5th respondent though he is not involved in any offence and also preventing him from attending his works, as illegal arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with day to day peaceful life and liberty of the petitioner in the interest of justice and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.RAMESH BABU NELATURI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME

2

The Court made the following:

ORDER :

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been

filed, by the Petitioner for the following relief:

“ ... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4^th respondent in insisting the petitioner to appear before the 4^th respondent Police Station in connection with civil disputes being raised by the 5^th respondent though he is not involved in any offence and also preventing him from attending his works, as illegal arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents not to interfere with day to day peaceful life and liberty of the petitioner in the interest of justice and pass ...”

At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit

that cause in this Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication and the Writ

Petition has become infructuous.

Recorded.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader is in attendance.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to

costs.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Mjl/* 07.01.2026

3

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Writ Petition No. 8971 of 2024

07.01.2026

Mjl /*