Writ petition seeking directions against respondents over action concerning a deceased police constable's wife and her parents regarding service and other benefits. No counsel appeared when listed for dismissal, so the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution without costs.
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.
[3486 I
IN TI{E HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HOI'.IOURABLE SRlJI1l USTICE VAKITI RAI{AKRISHNA REDDY
NO 632 201
Between:
Botumanchi Manohara. W)o. Swamv Das e9"9.!? years, Occu: Housewife, Ri/o. MangalavariOeta VFe, fnani'pur n4b ndal, Warangal District. ..la'i.
AND
...PETITIONER .:flf;i
.RESPONDENTS
Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumsrances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, tne Hijtr'Co-u;;;;;" pleased to issue writ order ordirection more particularry one in-the *trr" #writ of Mandamus _decraring the inaction.of the Respondents not tar<en any-steps against the wife of the deceased (Botumanchi Sandeep, porice constabre, No.3716), i.e. Killa Rachana (daughter-in_law) and her parents.
t. 1 201 tirrl. O:1 OF 14
Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the peiitio;, ihe Hign court may u" pr""."Jt" stay all further proceedings of the Fiespondents not to setfle t-he service ino othe_r benefits of my deceased son i.e. dotumanchi Sandeep, porice constabre, No.3716, pending disposal of the above Writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ALLURI RAGHU RAI{A AURAVA
Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR HOME
The Court made the following: ORDER
W.P.No.11632 of 2OL4
ollrtrd-il
None appears for the petitioner even though the the writ petition is listed under the caption,For Dir;missal'even today i.e., on OL.O9.2O2S. Hence, this Court has no other option but to dismiss the case for non-prosecution.
SD/. K.BHAVAN! SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
6
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
t-itcH COURT
DAT'ED:0110912025
ORDER
V{P.No.11632 of 2014
1l {r a.
S 21 lrt [ffi
*
i
SPrl
t
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR INON PROSECUTION V{ITHOUT COSTS
Ito,t
r(
n,'c
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Botumanchi Manohara
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Principal Secretary, Home Department
The Superintendent of Police, Warangal District
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mulugu, Warangal District
Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
