K Shiva Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

K Shiva Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. Writ Petition dismissed for non-prosecution; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondent No. 4 (Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Guntakal) in calling the petitioner to the police station and putting him to illegal confinement, without any complaints, on the pretext that his name is in a History Sheet, is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. NOTE: this grievance was never adjudicated; the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, as the petitioner appeared neither physically nor through video conference though the matter was posted under the caption 'for dismissal', and there was no representation for the petitioner on the previous adjournment also; there shall be no order as to costs.

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the dismissal, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 9408 of 2019 (K Shiva v. The State of AP and others), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, decided 05.02.2026 by Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi. The petitioner, a cultivator from Guntakal, Anantapur District, had sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of Respondent No. 4 (Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Guntakal) in calling him to the police station and putting him to illegal confinement, on the pretext that his name is in a History Sheet, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and directing Respondent No. 4 not to call him to the police station; IA No. 1 of 2019 under Section 151 CPC sought interim restraint against such harassment pending disposal. On the date of hearing, posted under the caption 'for dismissal', none appeared for the petitioner either physically or through video conference, and there was no representation on the previous adjournment as well; Sri R. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appeared for the respondents. Holding the petition dismissed for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs, and closing pending interlocutory applications. The Article 21 / history-sheet grievance was not examined or adjudicated.

APHC010212442019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3368]

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

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

WRIT PETITION NO: 9408/2019

Between:

K SHIVA, S/O KURUVA SHIVANNA, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O H.NO.22/264, KURUVA STREET, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

THE SUPERINTEND OF POLICE, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT

THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, II TOWN POLICE STATION, GUNTAKAL, ANANTAPUR 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 nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent no.4 in calling petitioner to police station there by putting him to illegal confinement without there being any complaints on the pretext that his name is in History Sheet as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the

2

Respondent no.4 to not to call the Petitioner to police station for putting him to illegal confinement and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent no. 4 to not to harass the petitioner by calling him to the police station regularly without any case being pending, pending disposal of the writ petition before this Hon'ble court, and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No.9408 OF 2019

ORDER:

None appeared for the petitioner either physically or through video conference, though the matter is posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’. There was no representation for the petitioner on the previous adjournment also.

Sri R.Mallikarjuna Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home is in attendance.

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

05.02.2026 Pmk

4

47

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

WRIT PETITION No:9408 OF 2019

Date: 05.02.2026

Pmk