Disposed

B.Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Jun 2023WP/9421/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus against summons disrupting personal life and liberty in a civil property dispute. Court directed police respondents not to interfere in civil disputes or harass the petitioner beyond legal procedure.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents No 2 to 4 not to interfere in civil disputes between petitioner and respondent Nos 5 and 6 and not to violate petitioner's personal liberty except in accordance with law.

B.Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9421 oF 2023

¶7

Between

¶8

q-Ve1ka! Reddy, S/o B. Krishna Reddy Aged 67 years occ Business, Rl/o Flat No C- 2703, Aditya Sunshine, Kondapui, Hyderabad, rep by its Keerthi Constructions.

¶9

...PETIT|ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. The State of Telangana, Rep.by.its Principal Secretary, Home Department. Secretariat, Hyderadad.

¶12

The Station House Officer, (C.l Prashanth),^pet Basheerabad police Station Cyberabad,

¶13

3.^/.Ram ^Ngrgyan,^{S/o not knownto the petitioner Aged about 45 years,} Occ. Sub-lnspector of Police, Pet Basheerbad, Cyberabad

¶14

Shiva Kumar, S/o not known to the petitioher Aged about 48 years Occ Assistant Commissioner of Police (in waiting) Attached to Cybeiabad Police Commissionrate, Cyberabad

¶15

Y.Pumachanddra Rao, Sio Y.Venkateswadu Aged about 45 years, Occ Business R/o 5-4-85, Vedderu Bazar, Adapa Vari Street Guntur, presently residing at Qutubullapur, Medchal Malkajgiri district,

¶16

Venkat, S/o not known to the petitioner Aged about 35 years Occ Business Rl/o Doolapalli village, Medchal Malkajgiri district.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No 2 and 3 in summoning the petitioner to the police station daily and disturbing the personal life and liberty of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents No2 and 3 not to summon the petitioner to the police station regularly and harass him.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition unJe- l]ection 1sl cpc praying that in the :i.currstances stated in the affidavit fil<:d in support of the petition, the High cou r ma y be pleased to issue lnterim dire(lti Ins to the respondents No 2 and 3 not to r.all the petitioner to the police station , l'e: Basheerabad pS regularly and distur: the: Iife and liberty of the petitioner p:n lirrg disposal of the writ petition,

¶21

Counsel for the Pet tioner : Ms. MADHAVI pRlyA MANTEN/\ Counsel for the Res oondent Nos.1 to 2 : AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Res lc,ndent Nos.3 to 6 : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

.P.N 942 of 23

¶23

HON'BtE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :

¶26

"......1o issue on oppropriote writ order or direclion more porticulorly one in the noture of WRIT OF yj]l?iiYs^direcr. respondenr No 4 consiJerins rnoclton of respondent No 4 in octing on petitioners unocknowledged represenlotion OoteO 22_4_2023 rnconsequenliolly direct respondenl No 4 io oci upon Pelilioners representotion ond poss......,,

¶27

Heord leorned counsel oppeoring for lhe petitioner ond

¶28

leorned Assistont Governmenl pleoder for Home.

¶29

Leorned Counsel oppeoring for the petitioner submils thot the petitioner entered into o registered development ogreemenl cum GpA beoring document No.55B of 2019 with G.Bikshopothi in respecl of the lond odmeosuring Ac.0.l5 Gts or 3388 squore yords in Sy.No.9/A/AA . 9 /E ond I 4/ A/VU situoted ot Dhoopolli villoge, Dundigol-Gondimoisommo mondol, Medchol, Molkojgiri Diskicl. He submits lhot lhe pelitioner hos mode on opplicotion seeking building permission ond the some wos gronted by the concerned muqicipolity vide permit No.0009/2020 in fite No.22Ot/2020, doted I 1.09.2020 ond

¶30

)

¶31

occordin-.lly ll :^pelilioner hos proceeded with the c:,r.rslruclion os per lhr: bu'l ling permil ond constructed 40 reside^1 ol llots in the scherjul,-- l,r()per-y. He; submits thot responcJerl I r:;.5 :nd 6 ore rencl,:rirg ;ervicrls os morketing ogents fo. disp:l,cl rrf lhe obove scrici f I r1:, ond loking odvontoge of^-heir ,r;rvices os morketinl; og( n1s, they hove holched o plon with r€,r;po/rdent No.4, whc r;^l-rr>ir close ossociole ond storled no <t:,sin 3 the petilioner t,r p,trl with o flol to them. He su : r'rits thcrt respondenl Nr.4 being influenced by respondenr Nor;.2 <tnd lJ ond olso ot th r instigotion of respondent Nos.5 ond t, is colling; lhe petili,rner o the Police Stotion ond mode him o sit hours ond olso thr,--c [ened him with dire consequences to r;et|e lhe dispules rviilr r :s tonrlent Nos.5 ond 6. He further sll: rlilr; thol lhe respcnd=r ls Poli<;e ore not hoving ony power c r tulhority lo direct the retilioner lo settle lhe dispute rvith r;s tondent Nos.5 oncl 6 by enter ng into compromise ond <rlso tc tr ressurize the pelilioner t r port wilh o flot lo respondent Nos.5 c nrl 6.

¶32

Leornc d ,A:;sislcrnt Government Pleoder for horrt, submits thol the rGSl)o rc enl:;-Police hove 1s6slysd o com;r r.,int from responde rt l.Jo 5 ogyoins't tlre peti'tioner ond bosjng or t'tot they hove rnocje ,r r ;[) enlry orrd conducted the pre im nc ry en ]qlly

I !

--..........

He submits thot for the purpose of investigotion only the respondents-Police ore colling the petitioner to lhe police stotion ond they ore not pressurizing the petitioner to seille the civil dispules, in ony monner with respondent Nos.S ond 6. He further submits thot if the comploinl ogoinsl the petitioner primo focie discloses thot the offence being committed is cognizoble in noture, they will iniliole oppropriote oction slricfly in occordonce with low ond olso follow the guidelines issued by lhe Hon'ble Apex Cour! in Lolito Kumori Vs. Government of Ullorprodeshr ond Arnesh Kumot Vs. Slote ol Bihorz.

¶37

Recording lhe submissions mode by leorned Assistonl Government Pleoder for Home, lhis wril pelition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 not lo interfere inlo civil disputes between the petilioner ond respondent Nos.S & 5 ond olso with the personol liberty of the petilioner in ony monner. excepl in occordonce wilh low.

¶38

With the obove directions. this writ petition is disposed of. No order os to costs

' lzou;^{z sccr}

'aIR^{zot+sc 2zs6}

As o se( ull. the^{miscelloneouspetitions penci-} l'^{if ony'}

¶43

sholl ston:l^c lo e,l

¶44

:;D/. K. AMMAJI ASS lrS;TAl.lT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII t;Ec:+ ON OFFICER

¶45

To, 1 . The Principal S<rcretary, Home Department, State of T -'l,,tngana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶46

The Slatror F cLrse Officer, (C.l Prashanth), Pet Bashe e:'abad police Station Cyberabad, 3. One CC to lv4s |\4ADHAV| PRTYA MANTENA, Advocate []pUCl 4. Two CC s lo GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the St:rte of Telangana at Hyderabad.[O Jl']

¶47

Two CD Copir s SB GJP

¶48

HIGH COURT

¶49

DATED:13106 2023

¶50

7,,iil. /- ==:::-- sr \rE (. <br>'il -
'(
-)a: \ n j\L l\ln
<br>il. '..::::

¶51

ORDER

¶52

WP.No.9421 cf 2023

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CIf;]TS

¶54

)
-F -4
(I
r?
c'-)
KZ

B.Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Wahid Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Mahesh Parvani Vs Mr. K.Satyanarayana

Borra Ramesh , Tillu Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Shafeeq Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Ponagoti Kishan Rao, Vs The state of Telangana

D. Shiv Prasad Vs The State of Telangana