Disposed

Sri.Erukulla Narsaiah Lingam v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Jun 2025WP/16248/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents alleged police harassment over a civil dispute involving their son and the third respondent. The Government Pleader stated no complaint was received or case registered. The court held mandamus against registration of cases could not be granted but directed police not to interfere with petitioners' life and liberty except in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to interfere with petitioners' life and liberty except in accordance with law; no costs.

Sri.Erukulla Narsaiah Lingam Vs 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

IVONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 16248 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Sri.Erukulla Narsaiah Lingam, S/o: Erukulla Venkataiah, Aged about 75 years, Occ. Business,

¶10

2 Smt.Erukulla Nirmala, W/o: Erukulla Narsaiah Lingam, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Household,

¶11

(B_o1h Sl.No. 1 and 2 R/o. H.Nlo.2-5-27111 , Ftat No.102, Maram Towers, . Near JOB Bank, Nakkalaguta, Hanamkonda, Warangal ,Telangana-506001)

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

1 State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶15

2 The Station House Officer, Subedari Police Station, Hanamkonda Division, Warangal-

¶16

3 Sri. Srinivasa Raju Naddunoori, Sio. Sri. Naddunoori Rajaiah. Shankar Rao, qgeQ .aboy! 39 years, Occupation. Business, Rl/o House'No.^'l -6-192 to .1 95, Flat No.404, SKApts, Bapuj iNagar. Musheerabad, Hyderabad-500020. Telangana State.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 an order especially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 not to interfere with file any criminal. cases for the transactions done which are purely civil in nature before this Hon'ble Court and subsequently declare the acts of Respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary and against the Constitution of lndia.

¶19

)

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section '151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent No.2 to not to harass the petitioners , pending disposar of the writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI THAKUR CHETAN STNGH

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Gp FOR HOME

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.3:__

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶27

Writ Petition No.L6244 of 2025

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, 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

Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Peiition at the admission stage and the naturq of /s involved, this Cout is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.3 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

¶31

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that, though they are not involved in any case or crime, the respondents-authorities are calling them to the police station and harassing in the name of enquiry into the dispute between their son and the 3'd respondent herein, which is^purely civil dispute, even though they are no way concerned with the said dispute.

¶32

Petitioners further contend thet the 2nd respondent authority at the behest of the 3'd respondent is visiting the^petitioners' house and^stafted harassing them regarding the transactions and MOU,^which the^3'd respondent had entered into with their son, despite being^informed that they were never part of the said transaction.

¶33

¶34

Petitioners further contend that apaft from being harassed by the regular visit of respondent Nos.2 and 3 to their house, the 2nd respondent authcrity is also threatening them from being impricated in farse criminar cases and thus, seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent not to interfere with personal IiFe and liberty of the petitioners or fire any criminar cases against them.

¶35

per contra, learned Government pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that as of date, no complaint is received or anf case is registered against the petitioners herein, and as such, there is no necessity for the authorities to either visit the house of the petitioners or harass them as being allcged.

¶36

Learned Government pleader furiher submits that the petitioners apprehending that the 3.d respondent may approach the respondentsauthorities and lodge a complaint against the petitioners, son and to protect their son, the petitioners have come up with the present Writ Petit;on

¶37

B I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 9 Though the petitioners by the present Writ petition have sought for rssuance of Writ of Mandamus, drrecting the 2nd respondent not to register any case against them, it is to be noted that the petitioners are not entitled to seek such rerief, as the respondents-authorities cannot be

¶38

¶39

directed not to register any caser if any complaint is made. However,

¶40

taking note of the fact that no complaint has been lodged nor any case is registered against the peiiiioners as of date, this Court is of the view that the respondents-a uthorities are to be directed not to interfere with the life and liberly of the petitioners, except in accordance with law.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

stand closed.

¶44

SD/.S. MALLIKARJUNA^RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTI OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary,^{Home Department, Secretariat State of Telangana,} Hvderabad.

¶49

ifi; Siat6 House Officer,^{Subedari Police Station, HanamkondaDivision,} Waranoal.

¶50

One Ce to Sri Thakur Chetan^{Singh, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶51

+. f*o CCs to GP for^{Home, HighCourt for the Stateof Telangana, at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶52

1. Two CD Copies

¶53

TJ LS

HIGH COURT

DATE D: 1 610612025

ORDER

THE S t4
(
() .P
1 B JUL 2025 2
+

¶58

WP.No.16248 of 2025

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶60

WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

Sri.Erukulla Narsaiah Lingam v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Erukulla Narsaiah Lingam v. 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

Sri. Kurva Anjaneyulu Vs The State of Telanagana

Bingannapally Bhagya Vs T.Satyanarayana

Mohd.Ibrahim (Since died) his L.Rs Vs Jani Begum

Janga Chinna Babu Vs The State of Telangana.

Amaraneni Pullaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Mohsin Bafana Vs The State of Telangana