Allowed

Busamsetti Srinivasa Rao, S/o Musalayya, v. Satyavolu Subramanaya Dinakara Prasad

Telangana HC22 Dec 2016WA/1411/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a Single Judge's order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to affected appellants, directing a police station to investigate and use force to protect the petitioner's liberty and property, restoring the Writ Petition for admission as it reopened the matter. The order quashed the non-followed procedure and ordered filing of counter affidavit.

What did the court decide?

The Single Judge's order is set aside; the Writ Petition is restored to file; appellants are directed to file counter affidavit by 31.12.2016; petitioner may seek admission of W.P. after 01.01.2017; n

Busamsetti Srinivasa Rao, S/o… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶3

Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2016

¶4

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶5

Heard Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner and, with their consent, the Writ Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.35205 of 2016 dated 19.10.2016.

¶6

The appellants herein are respondents 5 to 7 in the writ petition which was filed by the 1^st respondent herein. The respondent-writ petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the police officials to provide police aid for implementation of the injunction order dated 07.09.2011 passed in O.S.No.394 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry duly considering his complaint dated 02.10.2016.

¶7

At the stage of admission, without even putting the appellants (respondents 5 to 7 in the writ petition) on notice and without giving them an opportunity of being heard, the writ petition was disposed of directing the Station House Officer to conduct effective investigation and file a final report, if any, in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge made it clear that, if the situation necessitates, the Station House Officer was at liberty to use police force to protect the writ petitioner’s personal liberty and property.

¶8

Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit, not without justification, that an order, which affects the appellants’ rights, could not have been passed behind their back, and without giving them an opportunity of being heard.

¶9

While Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner, has put forth his contentions on merits, we are satisfied that the direction issued by the Learned Single Judge, permitting the Station House Officer to use police force to protect the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner’s personal liberty and property, could not have been passed without affording the appellants herein an opportunity of being heard.

¶10

On this short ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the order under appeal must be and is, accordingly, set aside. The Writ Petition is restored to file. The appellants herein shall file their counter affidavit on or before 31.12.2016. It is open to the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner to request the Learned Single Judge to take up the writ petition, for admission, any day after 01.01.2017.

¶11

The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

¶13

_____________________________ (A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J)

¶14

22^nd December, 2016 JSU

¶15

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶16

AND

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶18

Writ Appeal No.1411 of 2016

¶19

Date: 22.12.2016

¶20

JSU

Busamsetti Srinivasa Rao, S/o Musalayya, v. Satyavolu Subramanaya Dinakara Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Busamsetti Srinivasa Rao, S/o Musalayya, v. Satyavolu Subramanaya Dinakara Prasad

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

M/s. Tera Software Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer, Sanathnagar Circle

M/s. Crk Prasad, Vs Commercial Tax Officer, Krishnalanka Circle

M/s. Hima Agencies, Vs The Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

m/s. Sri Mohit Associates, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer ( Int.)

Gogiti Suresh Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Its Principal

M/s. Gannon dunkerley and Company Limited, Vs Commercial Tax Officer