Disposed

B. Purnachandra Rao S/o B. Guruchandranam v. The Station House Officer, Chatrinaka

Telangana HC15 Dec 2004WP/20168/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this interim stage of admission of a writ petition, the court noted that police interference without a registered case is impermissible. The court disposed of the petition directing respondents not to interfere with the petitioner unless a case is registered against him.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to interfere with petitioner unless a case is registered against him.

B. Purnachandra Rao S/o B. Guruchandranam Vs The… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 20168 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

B. Purnachandra Rao S/o B. Guruchandranam R/o 18-8-452/B/243, Bhavalal Nagar, Uppuguda, Hyderabad

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Station House Officer, Chatrinaka Police Station, Uppuguda, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The Circle Inspector, Chatrinaka Circle, Uppugada, Hyderabad

¶13

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

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 preferably a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate Writ, direction the respondents not to interfere with day to day business of petitioner in Door NO. 18-8-452/B/243, Bhavalal nagar, uppugada, Hyderabad and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary on constitutional and without authority of law.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶16

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

¶17

The petitioner alleges that the respondents are interfering with his business activities indiscriminately and causing hardship to him. He seeks appropriate directions in this regard.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home.

¶19

The petitioner has referred to certain specific instances of interference with his business and unlawful demands of amounts from him. However, these are unverified facts. The interference by the police with the right of an individual can be only on the basis of a specific complaint and on registration of a case under the relevant provisions of law. In the absence of the same, it shall not be open to them to interfere with the activities or rights of an individual. Though time was granted to the learned Government Pleader for Home, no material is placed before this Court.

¶20

Be that as it may, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall not interfere with the petitioner in any manner, except when any case is registered against him. No order as to costs.

15-12-2004

kdl

1 The Station House Officer, Chatrinaka Police Station, Uppuguda, Hyderabad

¶25

2 The Circle Inspector, Chatrinaka Circle, Uppugada, Hyderabad

¶26

3 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Home, A.P.High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).

¶27

4 Two CD copies.

B. Purnachandra Rao S/o B. Guruchandranam v. The Station House Officer, Chatrinaka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Purnachandra Rao S/o B. Guruchandranam v. The Station House Officer, Chatrinaka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ch. Brahmanandam, Vs The Joint Collector, Prakasam District

Gabbata Lingaiah, Vs The Joint Collector

Mynampati Sriramulu, Vs The Manadal Revenue officer

Kaveri Mahila Sangam, Vs Joint Collector, Anantapur

Kothuri Subba Rao, Vs The Joint Collector

V. Adi Lakshmi W/o Late B. Gurunadham Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer