Dismissed

G.Ramachandra Raju v. The Deputy Inspector of General of Police

Telangana HC4 Jul 2007WP/1905/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging police inaction in registering a complaint regarding unauthorized bus plying was dismissed. The Hon'ble Court held that the petitioner should have approached a competent court under Section 200 CrPC instead of filing a writ petition. The petition was found misconceived.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no costs awarded.

G.Ramachandra Raju Vs The Deputy Inspector… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No :1905 of 2002 Dated: 04.07.2007 Between: G.Ramachandra Raju ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Deputy Inspector General of police, Visakhapatnam and 3 others …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.1905 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents 2 and 3 for not taking into cognizance of the complaint dated 28.11.2001 made by the petitioner against the 4threspondent and his staff as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the bus bearing No. A.P. 31U-3969, which is plying between Narsipatnam to Chintrakonda with valid permit granted by the Transport department and the departure time of the vehicle is at 5 A.M. It is stated that the 4^th respondent-Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. unauthorizedly plying two buses, one is from Narsipatnam to Gudem and the other is from Narsipatnam to Zerrila everyday without following the timings given to the petitioner by the Transport department. In this regard, the petitioner made representation to the 4^th respondent to follow the timings as fixed by the Transport department. He further stated that on 28.11.2001 the 4^th respondent along with his staff visited

¶4

Abids center, where the bus of the petitioner was parked for boarding the passengers, and obstructed to proceed the bus by putting four RTC buses in front of his bus, as a result there was a quarrel taken place between them. Therefore, the petitioner made a complaint against the 4^th respondent and his staff to respondents 2 and 3, but the respondents have neither registered a case nor held any enquiry. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶5

Heard both sides.

¶6

I am of the considered view that the writ petition is misconceived. If the report given by the petitioner is not taken into consideration and the respondents-police have not registered any case against the 4^th respondent and his staff, it is always open to the petitioner to approach a competent Court and file a complaint as provided under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, instead the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. I do not find any merit in this writ petition.

¶7

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶8

____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J)

¶9

04-07-2007 Gsn.

G.Ramachandra Raju v. The Deputy Inspector of General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Ramachandra Raju v. The Deputy Inspector of General of Police

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

Smt. C.Subbayamma, Vs Government of A.P.

Chelikani Surendranath Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Narasamma, Vs The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad

Y.R. Junior College, Vinjamur, Nellore District, Vs The Vice -Chancellor

Mr.M. Vivek Reddy, Vs Government of A.P.

P. Durga Prasad, Vs The Regional Transport Authourity