Disposed

Gadepally Kameshwar Rao, v. The Cabinet Secretary

Telangana HC4 Jun 2009WA/562/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition seeking arrest of accused in a property dispute, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that since the underlying private complaint was pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, intervention was unnecessary on merits. However, it directed the lower court to dispose of the complaint expeditiously within six months to address the delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to dispose of C.C.No. 21 of 2005 expeditiously within six months from the date of receipt of the judgment.

Gadepally Kameshwar Rao, Vs The Cabinet… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO : 562 of 2009

¶7

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 21/01/2009 in WP NO : 150 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.)

¶8

Between: Gadepally Kameshwar Rao, S/o. Late G.A.R. Murthy, Management No. 303, Megha Enclave, Sree Colony, Neredmet Cross Roads, Rama Krishnapuram (Post), Secunderabad - 500 056.

.....

APPELLANT

AND

1 The Cabinet Secretary, Rashtrapathy Bhavan, Government of India, New Delhi.

¶13

2 The Union Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Government of India New Delhi.

¶14

3 The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

4 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 5 Shri R.P. Singh, IPS (Retd.)., Director, Security, GMR Airport, Shamshabad, Hyderabad.

¶16

6 The Director General & Inspector General of Police, D.G.P. Office, Andhra Pradesh Police Headquarters, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant: MR.V.MALLIK

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY

¶20

(ASST SOLICITOR GEN)

¶21

The Court made the following : ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari)

¶22

Aggrieved by the order, dated 21.01.2009 made in WP No. 150 of 2009 by a learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition denying the relief of arrest of his house owner, his sons and henchmen, sought for by the appellant, the present writ petition is filed.

¶23

The appellant who is writ petitioner was a tenant of premises bearing No. 17-2-383, Street No.2, Saidiabad, Hyderabad, belonging to one D.Laxmappa. It is case of the appellant that on several occasions, the house owner and his sons with the assistance of anti social elements, trespassed into his house and beat them and even committed theft of several properties. It is also his case that inspite of lodging complaint with the Police, Madannapet, no action has been taken and, therefore, he filed a private complaint on 15.2.2005 before the XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and also filed the

¶24

above writ petition seeking arrest of the culprits.

¶25

The learned Single Judge while observing that the arrest of the accused depends on the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the nature of offences alleged to have been committed and since the private complaint filed by the appellant is pending adjudication before the XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, the appellant can agitate his grievance and seek appropriate reliefs before the said court, has dismissed the writ petition.

¶26

Feeling aggrieved by the said dismissal, the writ petitioner preferred this Writ Appeal.

¶27

It is evident that the complaint filed by the appellant, which was registered as CC No. 21 of 2005 is pending adjudication before the XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Therefore, without adverting to merits or otherwise of the issue, suffice it to direct the learned XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to dispose of C.C.No. 21 of 2005 as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶28

With the above directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to cost.

¶29

Justice T.Meena Kumari

¶30

__________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar

¶31

June 4, 2009 MAS.

Gadepally Kameshwar Rao, v. The Cabinet Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gadepally Kameshwar Rao, v. The Cabinet Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs Mallipudi Seetharama Prasad

Chairman Common Entrance Test Comm.Hydanda Vs G.Bhanu Prakash Reddy Alwal Secundeabad

Ippili Durga Prasad Vs The Government of A.P. Revenue (Excise) Department

P.Narsa Reddy, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

Sankuru Mark Vs a.Ratna Kumari

Tummala Satyanarayana Chowdari Vs Sri Y.Rajendra Naidu