Disposed

Kunrapu Ashok v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jun 2025WP/15548/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged police were summoning them to the police station without any complaint or registered case, violating Article 21. Government Pleader undertook to follow due process. Court held that absent a case, authorities must be restrained from interfering with petitioners' personal liberty, subject to due process if any complaint arises.

What did the court decide?

Respondents restrained from interfering with petitioners' personal life and liberty; direction to follow due process in event of any complaint or case.

Kunrapu Ashok Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 15548 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kunrapu_Asho( S/o. Kunrapu Raianna, Age. 37 years, Occ. Business, F/o. H.No. 1-27, Anthargaon, Adilabad District.

¶10

ReddywarDevanna, S/o. Vilas Age. 41 years, Occ. Business R/o. H.No. 2_15, Karanji-T, Tamsi, Adilabad District

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

'1. The State oJ Tqlanggl.a, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Hfderabad.

¶14

The Superintendent of police, Adilabad District, Adilabad District.

¶15

The Station House Officer, Bheempur, Adilabad District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of of the 2nd and 3rd respondent in interfering in the personal liberty of the petitioners and harassing the petitioners by calling the petitioners to the police station without any reasons, which is highly illegal arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, i9 and 2'1 of constitution of lndia and also violation established principles of law and consequentially direct to the respondent No. 2 and 3 not to interfere with the personal liberty and not to Harres the petitioners

¶18

IAN^{O:1 OF 2025}

¶19

Petition under Section^{'1 5'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the^{affidavitfiled in support of the petition, the Highcourt maybe pleased to} direct^{the respondentNo. 2 and 3 not to interfere with the Personal liberty and not} to Harres^{the petitioners, during pending disposalof the Writ Petition}

¶20

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRl. SOMA RAVIKIRAN REDDY}

¶21

Counsel^{for the Respondents:GP FOR HOME}

¶22

The^{Court madethe following:ORDER}

t I

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.^VINODKUMAR

¶27

Writ Petition N .15548 of²⁰²⁵

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard learned counsel for^{the petitioners, learned Government} Pleader for Home appearing^{for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and with the} consent of the learned^{counsel appearing for the parties,the Writ Petition} is taken up for hearing and disposal^{at the admission stage'}

¶30

The case of the^{petitioners,in brief,is that, the 2nd and the 3'd} respondents are calling^{the petitionersto the policestation without there} being any complaint or^{case registeredagainst them andthereby,} interferlng with their^{personallife and liberty, which actionof the} respondents it is contended^{as highly illegal, arbitraryand in violationof} Article 21 of the Constitution of^India.

¶31

Per contra, learned Government^{Pleaderfor Home appearingon} behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3^{would submitthat the respondents-} authorities may be directed to^{follow due process of law in the eventof} any complaint/case is registered^{against the petitioners and that the} respondents-authorities would abide^{by the aforesaid action.}

¶32

I have taken note of the respective^{contentionsurged.}

¶33

Having regard to the submissions made as above,^{and since, it is} stated before this Court that no case is^{registered againstthe petitioners}

¶34

for the authorities to call the petitioners to the police station and make them to sit from morning to evening, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be restrained from interfering with the personal life and liberty of the petitioners.

¶35

However, it is made clear that in the event of any complaint being lodged or a case being registered against the petitioners. the respondentsauthorities are directed to follow due process of law.

¶36

Subject to above directidn, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall

¶38

stand closed.

¶39

sD/-^{Atn4ED AR?'kEtT#Hti} /

//TRUE^COPY//

SE$ffi^orr,"=*

To,

1 z J 4 5 6 ui]g^{i.ffiffiilt'tr*'*'r**l;;L} BM GJP fl

HIGH COURT

DATED:10 t}6t2}2s

I 'i ll S /.A i { c)
{.
1 ,,{
I i.l
0 :l sEP 2025
t.,"t,
..* ..
.

¶48

ORDER

¶49

WP.No.15548 of ZO2S

¶50

.DISPOSING^{OF THE} WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (w LL Lt ?

Kunrapu Ashok v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunrapu Ashok 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt K. Manjula Vs The State of Telangana

Gugulothu Sundar, Vs The State of Telangana

K Ashok Naidu Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Ismail Biyabani @ Fruit Mohammed Vs State of Telangana

Mr. Dastagir Shareef Vs The State of Telangana

Mandava Upender Vs The State of Telagana