Writ petition alleging police called the petitioner to the station and pressured him in a civil dispute at a private party's behest. With no interference since the 2016 interim order, the court made that interim direction absolute restraining police from interfering in the civil dispute or calling the petitioner to the police station.
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.
13217 |
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION NO:16321 OF 2016
Between:
Sri G.Madhusudan Reddy, S/o. Late G.Chandra Reddy, Aged about 62years, Occu Retd. Employee, R/o.H.No.18-42, Kamalanagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad-SOO O60.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oI lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in the atfidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more parlicularly one in lhe .nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondent no.3 in calling the petitioner and his workers to the police station and detaining htm there for hours together and involving in civil matters at the .behest of the unofficial respondent as is illegal, arbitrary; contrary to law and in violalion of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.3 not to interfere rn the civil dispute and also not to call the petitioner to theirpolice station.
! Ii : I
; i ! I I I I i ; I I I I I I
l.A. NO: 2OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 20110 OF 2016)
Petition trnder section 151 cpc praying that in th€ )ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High coL l may be preased to direct the respondent No.3 not to interfere in the civil disprrl l and also not to call the petitioner to their police station pending disposal of - ) above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition.
.A. NO: 3 OF 2016(WPMP . NO: 40164 OF 20 1 6)
Between:
Smt.S.Renuka Devi, W/o. Sri S.Tulasi Dasu. Aoed a rout 46 years, Occu House Wife. Ryo Ftat No.5O5, North East nesiOendy, -S I jabad, Fyderabad.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High Colr may be pleased to receive the additionar counter Affidavit arong with the marr riar papers in w.p. No.16321 of 2016.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt K.RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI B.SESIBUSHAN RA,l Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI S.TULASI DAS
The Court made the following: ORDER
1
t i
I I
THE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICEN.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.16321 OF 2016
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article226of Constitution of India seeking the following reliefls:-
"...to issue any writ, order or directionmore particularly onein the nature of Writ of Mandamusdeclaring action of the respondentNo.3in calting thepetitionerand his workers to the policestation and detaining him there for hours togetherand i[volvingin civil matters at thebehest of the unofficialrespondentas illegal,arbirary,contraryto law and in violation of Article 14 and 2l ofConstitutionof Indiaand consequently, direct the respondent No.3 notto interferein the civil dispute and also not to call the petitioner to theirpolicestation and to pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fitjust and proper in the circumstances of the case."
dated 12.05.2016,granted an interim directionrestraining the respondents from interfering in the civil disputesor exertingpressureon the petitioner flor settlement. It is further submittedthat,subsequent to the passing of the said interim order, the respondentshave not caused any interference,and that making the interim orderabsolute would suffrcientlyredressthe petit ioner's grievance.
2
pressure on the petitionerfor settlement,as atleged.It is cor tendedthat, in
any event, sincethe petitioner'sgrievance already sii nds redressed pursuant to the interim direction,nothingfurther survives I rr adjudication
in the presentWrit Petition.
interim order, thiscourt deems it just and proper to make , he saidinterim order absolute. Accordinglyordered and this writ Petitioris disposed of.
There shall be no orderas to costs-
Miscellaneous Petitions,pending ifany. shallstand
\
closed. JAWAHARREDDL-- -^ sd/-l{l ASS |i TAT.IT REGISTRAR /TTRUECOPY'/ ECTIONOFFICER F\
BSR
HIGH COURT
DATED: 1910812025
ORDER
WP.No.16321 of 2016
' . i{HE S,
_ c)r;.1
(.f !:\
i 'i-) ]S JIN 2Oi6 -2.!i
:.;l
'. *
'. )
, ,. -' .:.,.
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS
@
\vr'
b \^
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri G.Madhusudan Reddy
The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principle Secretary for Home
The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad
The Station House Officer, Police Station Adibatla
The Tahasildar, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District
Smt.S.Renuka Devi
N.Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
