Disposed

Banda Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 8 others

Telangana HC23 Apr 2021WP/5110/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed writ and IA petitions challenging the inaction of the Station House Officer in granting police protection. The Court noted the SHO failed to decide within two weeks as per a prior order. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the SHO to consider the representation and prior orders within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Station House Officer to consider the representation dated 15.12.2020 and a subsisting order within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Banda Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI'JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION N O: 5110 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Banda Venkat Reddy, S/o. Pichi Reddy, aged about 53 years, Occ- Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No.7-69/4, Sai Colony, Pedda Amberpet village, Abdullapurmei mandal, Ranga Reddy District (Present residing at Siripuram Ramannapet mandal, Yadadri Bhongiri District.

¶8

2 Itikala Madhu Sudhann Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. H.No.7-69/A, Sai Colony, Pedda Amberpet village, Abdullapurmet mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana and B others, rep by its Principal Secretary for Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶12

The Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate.

¶14

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bhongiri, Yadadri Bhongiri District.

¶15

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Choutuppal, Yadadri Bhongiri District.

¶16

The Station House Officer, Ramannapet Police Station, Yadadri Bhongiri District

¶17

Veesam Galaiah, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ- Labour, R/o. Siripuram village Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri Bhongiri District.

¶18

B. Veesam Yadaiah,, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged about 50^years, Occ- Labour, R/o. Siripuram village Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri Bhongiri District.

¶19

Veesam Ramachandram, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged about 45^years, Occ- Labour Fl/o. Siripuram village Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri Bhongiri District

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

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 a writ or order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of lMandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.6 is not providing^police protection by considering the representation dated 15.12.2020 in spite of orders passed, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶23

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. 6 to consider the representation dated 15.12.2020 and^grant police protection to the petitioners over the properties admeasuring Ac.3.20 guntas

¶24

in sy.No.1,15 and Ac.3.02^{guntas in sy.No. 114 of Siripuram Revenue village,sivar,} Ramannapet Mandal, Yadad ri-Bho^{ngiri District, pending disposalof the abovewrit} petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl.^{T S ANIRUDH REDDY}

¶26

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.¹ to 6:^{AGP FOR HOME}

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 7 to 9:^{NONE APPEARED}

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶30

WRIT PETITION No. 5110 of 2O21

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard the learned counsel lor the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

¶33

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent No.6 in not providing Police protection by considering the application dt. 15. 12.2O2O submitted by the petitioners, as illegal.

¶34

Sri T.S.Aniruclh Reddv, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that this Court vide order dt.29,O9,2020 in W.P.No.15325 of 2O2O^{granted libertyto} the petitioners herein to lile an appropriate application belore the 6,h rcspondcnt narrating all the events that^have taken place and by showing^{justification} to grant^Police protection. As and when such application is filed, the Station House Officer, Ramannapet Police Station,^sha-ll consider the .^{same and take appropriate decisiona.s} warranted by law, rvithin a period of two weeks from^the date of receipt of such application. He would^further submit that the petitioners herein fiied an^application dt.15.12.2)20 by duly enclosing the copy of^{the order} d1.29.09.2020 in W.P.No.l5325 of^{2O2O and also the copy} of the order d1.03.07 .2.020 in^I.A.No.183 of^2O2Orn O.S.No.91 of 2O2O passcd b1^r-hc Principal^{Junior civil}

¶35

Judge, Ramannapet. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said application dt.15.12.2020, 6rh respondent did not act upon it within two weeks from the date of receipt of such application in compliance of the order dt.29.Og.2O2O passed in W.P.No. 15325 ot 2O2O. Therefore, rhe present writ petition.

¶36

He would further submit that order dt.O3.O7,2O2O in I.A.No.183 of 2O2O in O.S.No.91 of 2O2O is subsisting as on today. Though the said lact was intimated to the 6th respondent in the application dt.IS.12.2O2O, he has not considered the same.

¶37

Sri S. Ram Mohan, learned Assistzrnt Government Pleader for Home on instructions would submit that since the order dt.O3.O7.2020 in I.A.No.183 of 2O2O in O.S.No.91 of 2O2O is ex-parte order, the 6th respondent has not considered the same. However, he would lurther submit 6th respondent will consider the application dt.15. 12.2O2O submitted by the petitioners and take appropriate decision in accordance with 1aw, as orclered b-v this Court vide order dt.29.O9.2O2O in W.p.No.15325 of 2O2O and also considering the fact that the order dt.03 .O7,2O2O in I.A.No.183 of 2O2O inO.S.No.91 of 2O2O is subsisting as on today, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

in view of the sard submission, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 6th respondent to consider the representation dt.i5. 12.2020 submitted by the petitioners and take appropriate decision in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. He is further directed to consider the fact that the order dt.03.07.2O2O in LA.No.183 of 2O2e in O.S.No.91 of 2020, passed by the principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet is subsisting as on today and also the order dt.29.09.2020 in W.PNo.1S325 of 2O2O passed by this Court. No costs.

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, sha11 stand

¶40

closed.

¶41

SD/- R,KARTHIKEYAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY/i

SEGTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Principal Secretary for Home Department, State of Telangana Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶47

The Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶48

The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate.

¶49

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bhongiri, Yadadri Bhongiri District.

¶50

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Choutuppal, Yadadri Bhongiri District.

¶51

The Station House Officer, Ramannapet Police Station, Yadadri Bhongiri District

¶52

One CC to Sri. T S Anirudh Reddy Advocate [OPUC]

¶53

B. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶54

Two CD Copies.

PM.,,.:

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310412021

1 r.E Slrl r€
,
r.,) 2I APB 2021 ,.,
*

¶59

ORDER

¶60

WP.No.S110 of²⁰²¹

¶61

Disposing of the^WP Without costs.

¶62

<1--.r<br>

Banda Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 8 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banda Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 8 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

Sri. Shivaratri Kumaraswamy Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Thatiparthi Mohan Rao and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Mohammed Irfan Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Garapati Nagaraju, And 10 Others Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Syed Shabbir Hussain, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Mohammed Kareem Uddin Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others