Dismissed

Mohammed Obeydullah Khan and Another v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Telangana HC15 Sept 2020WP/13371/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 preventing police from summoning them to settle a property dispute. This Court noted that a separate Crl.P. resulted in conditional orders, and investigations were ongoing. Thus, the apprehension did not subsist.

What did the court decide?

Police interference with property matters was addressed; warrants or summonses in that context were found not to subsist.

Mohammed Obeydullah Khan and Another Vs The State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY. THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 13371 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

[,4ohammed Obeydullah Khan, S/o Late Mohammed Ibrahim Khan, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Business,

¶9

Mohammed Abdul Bari, Sio lt4ohammed Abdul Aziz, Aged About 44 years, Occu. Business,

¶10

Both R/o H.No.19-3-549/10/40, AIi Nagar, Aliabad, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary for Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The Director General of Police, For Telangana State, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad

¶15

3 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

¶16

4 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, l/adhapur Division, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

¶17

5 The Station House Offrcer, Police Station Raidurgam, Cyberabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lt4andamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the high-handed and illegal aclion of the official Respondents more particularly Respondent No.4 and 5 in frequently summoning the Petitioners to the Police Station thereby threatening them with dire consequences and forcing to settle the matter with Smt. Laxmi Parthasarty in respect of the Plot bearing No.21, admeasuting 422 sq. yds in Sy No. 91, situated at Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally lvlandal, under GHIVC, Ranga Reddy District as she is nowhere connected or concerned with the subject property, which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principal of natural .lustice and consequently direct Respondent No.4 and 5 not to summon the petitioners to the Police Station threatening them to settle the matter involving civil matters with Smt. Laxmi Parthasarty in respect of the above said property.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 and 5 not to summon the Petitioners to the Police Station even when there is no case registered against them at the instigation of Smt Laxmi Pa(hsaraty.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRt. MOHD. MUZAFERULLAH KHAN

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.13371 OF 2O2O

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard learned counsel for^petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

¶29

Petitioners claim that they are the owners of land to an extent of 422 squarc yards bearing Plot No.21 in Sy.No.91 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. According to learned counsel for petitioners, the said property was sold to third parties, they have obtained building permission, constructed multi-storied building and it is lulll' one occupicd, That being so, based on complaint lodged .by Smt.Laxmi Parthasarathy police are frequentll' calling the petitioners to Raidurgam police station and harassing and humiliating them. Petitioners right to Ibertv and privacl' are alli:cted b1'frequcntil calling them to police stertion.

¶30

Basecl on instructions furnished, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that Cr.No.92 of 2O2O was registered in Raidurgam Police Station on complaint lodged by a person by name Mr.Haq on 05.O2.2020. With reference to said crime, petitioners filed Crl.P.No.3158 of 2O2O to grant anticipatory bail and conditional orders were passed by this Court on 27.O8.2O2O. He also submits that police are not interfering in the property mentioned in the u,rit petition and u,ith reference to said property, no crime is registerecl in Raidurgam Police Station and petilioncrs .rrc never called to the policc station. Hc submits invcstigaition is in progress rn Cr.No.92 ol 2020.

¶31

¶32

In view of the submissions of learned Assistant Government Pleader based on instructions issued to him, the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that they are frequently called to the policc station do not subsist an)' more rvith relerencc to propcrt) mcnlioncd in thc t rit pctition. Therelore, cause in tho u'rit pclition does not subsisl any more.

¶33

Accordingly, the u'rit pctition is dismisscd. Pending

¶34

miscellaneous petirions, if anr', shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/. K.AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// t,

¶36

sec{lor.r oFFtcER

¶37

To,

¶38

1 . One CC to^{Sri. Mohd. Muzaferullah Khan' Advocate (OPUC)} 2. i;; ccs tocp^{tor r-romelHigrr Courtfor the State of Telangana at Hyderabad} (our) 3 Two CD CoPies P[/ }-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 510912020

1 H E s 14
R
o
oo 21 SEP ffi::::::::::::::::O
-L
=:::2/

¶43

ORDER

¶44

WP.No.13371 of 2020

¶45

Dismissing the WP Without costs

Mohammed Obeydullah Khan and Another v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Obeydullah Khan and Another v. The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.NaveenKumar Vs The State of Telangana

Mahmood Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others

Gaijala Yeshwant Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. B. Saritha Vs The State of Telangana

Daragani Venkateshwarlu and 4 others Vs State of Telangana and 6 others

Smt K. Savita Vs The State of Telangana