This court disposed of a writ petition challenging police interference in civil disputes. Relying on counter affidavits denying detention and interference, the court held no further orders were required and closed the petition. The petitioner filed no reply.
No further orders required; Writ Petition closed.
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 P.KESHAVA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 38062 OF 2015
ORDER :
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
“ …to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent 3 & 4 in calling the petitioner to the Krishnalanka and Machavaram Police Stations, Vijayawada, Krishna District by interfering into civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 is illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No. 3 and 4 not to interfere with the petitioner’s day to day life by c alling the petitioner to Krishnalanka and Machavaram Police Stations, Vijayawada, Krishna District by forcing to sit in the stations hours together.”
2
specifically stated that respondent No.3 never detained the petitioner in the police station on 10.6.2015, 18.6.2015, 13.7.2015 and 20.11.2015 at the instance of respondent No.5.
has been filed.
8. As such, the Writ Petition is closed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand
closed. No order as to costs.
__________________ P. KESHAVA RAO,J
Date: 28.11.2018
KPM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the calling of the petitioner to police stations by police officers amounts to illegal interference in civil disputes.
Whether the allegations of restraint of personal liberty under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution are substantiated.
The Petitioner
Respondent No. 1
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3 (Krishnalanka Police Station)
Respondent No. 4 (Machavaram Police Station)
Respondent No. 5
P. KESHAVA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
