Petitioner filed a writ petition against the State for preventing entry to a Sangham premises. The court held that police intervention is impermissible without a specific complaint and registered case. The petition was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.5813 OF 2010
Dated 1 5 th March, 2010
Between: Chetti Komuraiah …Petitioner And The Station House Officer and Another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Venumadhav Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Home
The Court made the following
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in preventing the petitioner from entering the premises of the Mallikarjuna Oggukalabrunda Sangham (for short “the Sangham”), Vijayapuri, Jagityal, Karimnagar District at the instance of respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.1.
In the view I am proposing to take, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.2. The pleadings raised in the writ petition show that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 concerning the activities of the Sangham and that in order to prevent the petitioner, who claims to be the Cultural Secretary of the Sangham, from participating in the activities of the Sangham, respondent No.2 has approached respondent No.1, who in turn allegedly has been preventing the petitioner from entering the Sangham. In my opinion, it is not permissible for respondent No.1 in interfering with the disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.2. Unless respondent No.2 has given a complaint to respondent No.1 and the latter is satisfied that the complaint shows commission of an offence by the petitioner and a case in that regard is registered, respondent No.1 cannot interfere with the personal liberty of the petitioner.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.7486 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
Dated 15th March, 2010 Note: Issue C.C in three (3) days vrn
1 issue framed by the court
Whether State authorities can interfere in disputes between individuals without a registered case showing commission of an offence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chetti Komuraiah
Station House Officer
Another
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
