Dismissed

Palle Sankaraiah v. The Commissioner of Police and 3 Others

Telangana HC7 Sept 2020WP/14727/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP 14727 of 2020, the Telangana High Court dismissed a petition challenging police inaction. The court held the petition was not maintainable at the admission stage as the representation was filed recently, and it remains open to the Commissioner to act upon it.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs, with no interim order regarding the specific complaint.

Palle Sankaraiah Vs The Commissioner of Police and… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 14727 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Palle Sankaraiah, S/o. Palle Anjaiah, aged 68 years, Occ. Agriculture, H.No.'1-1, Thimmapur Village, Bommalaramaram lt/andal, Yadadri-Bhuongir District. 508126.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Commissioner of Police, O/o. Rachakonda Corn missionerate, 306, Sainikpuri Rd, Shiva Nagar Colony, l.4adhura Nagar, AS Rao Nagar, Secunderabad, Telangana 500094

¶11

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bhongir Zone, Ivled iku ntapa lly, Bhuvanagiri, Telangana - 5081 16.

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. - 5081 16.

¶13

Mr. L. lt4adhu Babu, S/o. not known, aged about 45 years, working as S.l. of Police, Bommalaramaram P.S., Bhongir - Yadadri District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of lt/andamus, declare the action of the 1st respondent in not taking any action on the 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of all^principles of natural justice and further direct the respondents to take appropriate action on the 4th respondent for his illegal action on the petrtioner as per the representatron of the petitioner d ated 2Bl 08 I 2020.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

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 1st respondent to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent for his illegal acts against the petitioner by disposing of the representation dated 2810812020 pending disposal of the present Writ Petition in the interest of^justice.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KAMALAKARA RAO BATHINA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: _

¶21

The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER

¶22

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO. 14727 ol 2O2O

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistanl Government Pleader for Home. With consent of both cotnrsei, u,rit petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

¶26

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ther(r is interse dispute betu,een petitioner and his family members and sevo al crimes are registered in Bommalaramaram police slation. Petitioner apprehends that since petitioner sought certain information under Right to lnlbrmation Act,2005 regarding registration of crimes and on issues relating to seizure/ release of rice belonging to Public Distribution S,vstem, 4LL respondent bore grudge against petitioner, therelbre, petitioner submitted complaint dated 28.8.2020 to the Commissioner, Rachakonda police/ lirst respondent herein. Alleging inaction r;n the said complaint and that petitioner is unable to bear the harassmc n t caused by 4th respondent, this writ petition is filed.

¶27

As rightlv pointed out by the learned Assistant G()vernment Pleader, even assuming that there is some truth in the allegations made b1, petitioner, since representation rvas submittt:d b1,' petitioni r onh, on 28.8.2O2O, it cannot be said that the Commissioner- lirst rcsr.ronclcrrt is ncgligcnt in acting on the reprcsentation.

¶28

Therelore u,rit petition is not maintainable at this stage, Accordingly, the u'rit petition is dismissed. Hou't.:r,er, this ordt'i docs r'rot come in thc way of Commissioner- first respondent acting upon thc complaint ol the pctitioner dated 28.8.'2O2O and il there is ar,i' delay ir.r acting upon the same, it is always open to thc petitioner l.) uiorkolrt remedies available under lau,. No costs. Miscellaneous pctiti()ns, ll'iut\ pcnding, stand closed.

¶29

SD/- B.^SATY HI AS SISTANT^REGI RAR //TRUE^COPY// SECTION FFICER

¶30

The Commissioner^{of Police, O/oRachakonda.Corn'mrssionerate'306' SainikpuriRd} l\agar,^{/'1or\qvrrsvsr'} -'--' Shiva^{Nagar Colony, Madhura'ffid;;'AS il;Nagar'Secunderabad' Telangana} 500094

To,

One CC to Sri. Kamalakara Rao Bathina, Advocate (OPUC)

¶35

Two CCs to the GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana. (OUT)

¶36

Two CD Copies. Pl/r

¶37

HIGH COURT

¶38

DATED:0710912020

¶39

1 H e s T4
(
q '(
o 1 4 SEP 2U0 z
.L
{'j,
t:
a) c

¶40

ORDER

¶41

WP.No.14727 ot 2020

¶42

Dismissing the WP Without costs.

¶43

a /r)
tl

Palle Sankaraiah v. The Commissioner of Police and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palle Sankaraiah v. The Commissioner of Police and 3 Others

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

Ch.Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Saluvadi Sumalatha Vs The Telengana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Boardd(Trei-Rb) and Another

M. Murali Chary Vs Addl. Registrar Services

Sri. Khatighar Shankar Rao and 5 others Vs The State of Telangana and 11 others

E.Prabhakar Vs The State of Telangana and another

Jaggampudi Kiran Kumar Vs The State of Telangana