Disposed

Pagiri Marri. Satyanarayana, v. Arun K. Sharma

Telangana HC13 Dec 2004WP/18481/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought police protection alleging threats from civil counterparts. The Court held the underlying dispute is civil. It disposed of the case by directing the petitioner to report specific future threats to the concerned police station for appropriate action.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner directed to report specific future acts of threat to the concerned police station.

Pagiri Marri. Satyanarayana, Vs Arun… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 18481 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pagiri Marri. Satyanarayana, S/o. Narasaiah, R/o. Plot No.92, Sagar Enclave, Byramulguda, Karmanghat, Saroor Nagar (M), Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Arun K. Sharma, S/o. Not Known,

¶12

and also "Arunodaya Educational & Cultural Academy". R/o. Plot No.21,

¶13

Laxmi Nilayam, Sai Sagar Enclave, Nikil Hospital Road, Near Manasa

¶14

Sarovar Heights, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Vimala, W/o. Arun K. Sharam, R/o. Plot No.21, Laxmi Nilayam, Sai Sagar Enclave, Nikil Hospital Road,

¶15

Near Manasa Sarovar Heights, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Abinav, S/o. Arun K. Sharam, R/o. Plot No.21, Laxmi Nilayam, Sai Sagar Enclave, Nikil Hospital Road, Near

¶16

Manasa Sarovar Heights, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Anush, S/o. Arun K. Sharam, R/o. Plot No.21, Laxmi Nilayam, Sai Sagar Enclave, Nikil Hospital Road, Near

¶17

Manasa Sarovar Heights, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District. 6 The S.I. of Police, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 7 The S.I. of Police, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.

¶18

.....RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 5 to 7 in not taking any action

¶20

pursuant to the complaints given by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents 5 to 7 to provide police protection to the petition and take action against the culprits who are respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein and their men that they are trying to kill the petitioner at any time.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KADASANISUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4:------Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7: GP FOR HOME

¶22

The Court at the admission stage made the following Order:

¶23

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO. 18481 of 2004

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The petitioner claims to have submitted a complaint before respondents 5 to 7, three different police stations, alleging that respondents 1 to 4 have threatened him with dire consequences and with life, in case, he persists on demand for payment of the consideration for the material supplied by him. The petitioner alleges that no action had been taken by the respondents.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions touching on the merits of the matter. He, ultimately, states that the petitioner is interested in pursuing the complaint submitted by him before the respondent No.6

¶28

Learned Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submits that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 4, is purely civil in nature and the complaint is vague and unspecific.

¶29

Though the petitioner had made complaints before three police stations, he confines the relief as regards respondent No.6, viz., P.S. L.B.Nagar. The petitioner made a reference to the existing civil dispute between himself and the respondents 1 to 4. Neither respondent No.6 nor this Court can deal with the same. Suffice it to say that when the petitioner apprehended threat from respondents 1 to 4, respondent No.6 is expected to accord necessary protection.

¶30

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that as and when the petitioner faces any specific acts of threat, it shall be open to him to report to respondent No.6, and in such an event, the latter shall take appropriate action in

¶31

accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

13.12.2004

usd/ts

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Alwal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶36

2. The S.I. of Police, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶37

3. The S.I. of Police, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.

¶38

4. Two CCs to G.P. for Home, A.P.High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶39

5. Two CD copies.

Pagiri Marri. Satyanarayana, v. Arun K. Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pagiri Marri. Satyanarayana, v. Arun K. Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Saradha, Vs The District Collector

Nellore Club , Nellore, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sindhe Srinivasa Rao S/o Krishnamurthy Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Smt. Kommagiri Sudharani W/o Rajasekhar Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Kasi Chittibabu S/o Appanna Vs The Joint Collector Civil Supplies Wing)

Karri Govindu Vs The Sub-Divisional Magistrate