The High Court did not entertain the writ petition due to vague allegations but granted liberty to notify higher authorities in case of police excess. The petition was then disposed of.
Liberty granted to approach higher authorities in case of police excess; no order as to costs.
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 A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.14271 of 2017
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the second respondent in calling the petitioner to the Police Station and making him sit in the Police Station and threatening to disburse the amount credited to the PEARLS, as illegal.
This Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition as the allegations are vague. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the higher authorities, if there is any excess use of power by the concerned Police. This will not prevent the Police from investigating the crime, if any already registered, or if the petitioner is wanted in connection with any crime.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 20.04.2017 vs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging police action and threats regarding disbursement of funds.
Petitioner
Second Respondent
A. Ramalingeswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
