Disposed

Parini Veera Venkata Gangadhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC19 Nov 2025WP/33611/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged police interference with free movement and liberty by requiring them to appear at Miyapur police station at a private respondent's instance. Police denied interfering unlawfully. The court directed police not to interfere with petitioners' life and liberty except in accordance with law and due process, and disposed of the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Police directed not to interfere with petitioners' life and liberty nor summon them except in accordance with law; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Parini Veera Venkata Gangadhar Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132171

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:3361t oF 2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Parini.Veera Venkata Gangadhar, S/o. p.V.V.Satyanarayana, 30 yrs., Rl/o. Fllt No.201, Sur Lake vi6w neiiolnty, ij;;r;i'in"riru,'a;id" bsi[ Office, Miyapur-s00 050.

¶10

2 Parini Veera Venkata Satvanar.aya-na, .S/o. Late parini Veera Raju, 50 yrs., R/o Door No 1-56, oan6epirri'rvrinbii,-ru"ir, riluirtni nE"pliai,l ilri Godavari District,

¶11

3 iTt !^{Venkata Laxmi Mangatayaru,} !V/g,^{p.V.V.Satyanarayana,} 46 yrs., R/o Door No.'t-S6, Gandepirri ririndai, Nortn-iiiiialnt €Fd;,", i;;i Godavari District.

¶12

4 Sml- Kalturi Sesha Devi, Wo K. Veerendra, 29 yrs., R/o. Shivalayam Veedhi, Kasheru, D No 2-'t6318, Ralanmunary-UrOJn, E"rttJjrrari District

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

'1. The State of Telanoana Rep by its principal Secretary Home Department,'Yrrqr^vvv'|vr Secretariat Buitdin!'s, Hiderbbaa.'-^'

¶16

Asst. Commissioner of police Cyberabad,, Hyderabad.

¶17

Station House Officer Miyapur police Station,, Hyderabad.

¶18

Komaraneni Anisha, Wo. larini Veera Venkata Gangadhar, R/o. Sur Lake View Residency,^pra garn i enctive, fvf iyipu;_5biisb.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in insisting the petitioners to attend the police station, Miyapur, Hyderabad at the instance of 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of naturar justice and fundamentar

¶21

I I I I I

¶22

I I

¶23

rights of free movement consequenfly direct the respondents not to interfere with the free movement and riberty of the petitioners incruding insisting them to appear before police station, Miyapur and foflow the principres of raw herd in various decisions of the Honourable courts.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 20,t8

¶25

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 3rd respondent not to insist to the petitioners to attend the porice station, Miyapur, Hyderabad at the instance of 4th respondent.

¶26

counsel for the petitioner: sRr r. v. s. RAo ( Nor ,RESENT) 'RABHAKARA Counsel for the Respondents No 1 To 3: SRI D. PRADEEP, AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No 4: _:-

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

I l I l

1 \

THE HONOTIRABLE SRI WSTICE^{N. TUI(ARAUJI}

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.336 11 of2018

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Writ Petition is filed with the^{following relief:}

¶35

"...to issue writ, order or direction,^{moreparticularly} one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus^declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in insisting^the petitioners to attend the police station, Miyapur, Hyderabad at the instance of 4th respondent^as illegal, arbitrary and violative of^principlesof nahrral^justice and fundamental rights of^free movement consequently direct the respondents^not to interfere with the free movement and liberty^of the petitioners including insisting them to^appear before police station, Miyapur and follow the principles of law held in various decisions of the Hon'ble courts and pass..."

¶36

None appeared on behalf of ttre^petitioner.

¶37

Heard Mr.D.Pradeep, Iearned Assistant^Government Pleader for Home appea-ring for respondent^{Nos.1 to 3'}

¶38

t earned Assistant Government Pleader for^{Home submits} that the respondent police authorities^{have neverinterfered} with the life or liberty of the^petitioner at^{the instanceof} respondent No. 4, as alleged in the^{petition. It is contendedthat} the allegations made against^{the respondent police authorities} are baseless and unsupported by any^{material. He further} submits that the respondent^{police authorities haveacted} strictly within the^parameters of law,^{and therefore,the} contentions raised by the^{petitioner are liable to be dismissed.}

¶39

I have perused the material available on^record.

¶40

¶41

¶42

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent police authorities are allegedly interfering with his free movement and personal liberty by insisting that he appear before the police station without any law{ul basis. The stand taken by the respondent police authorities, however, makes it clear that they have not interfered with the petitioner's life or liberty, as alleged.

¶43

Nevertheless, in order to safeguard the rights of the petitioner ald to address his apprehension, the respondent police authorities are directed to refrain from interfering with the petitioner's life and liberty and shall not sumnon him to the police station except in accordance with law and for valid reasons. It is, however, clarifred that any action taken by the police authorities strictly in accordance with law and following due process shall not be construed as a violation of this order.

¶44

With this direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if a.ry, shall stand

¶46

closed.

¶47

To,

¶48

1 The Principal Secretary^{Home DepartmentStateof Telangana' Secretariat} Buildings, Hyderabad. ,/

¶49

Asst. Commissioner of police Cyberabad,, Hyderabad.

¶50

Station House Officer Miyapur police Station, Hyderabad.

¶51

One CC to SRt. T.V,S. PRABHAKARA RAO, Advocate [OpUC]

¶52

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶53

Two CD Copies DAN BS (-k

HIGH COURT

DATED:19 t11tZOZs

ORDER

WP.No.33611 of 2018

(__
f o R H L s
.-)
1 l-
, (,.
,\ )l rd.
.:'

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS

¶61

.44
q
&""

Parini Veera Venkata Gangadhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parini Veera Venkata Gangadhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Ch Sudhakar Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Gandhi Sanjiva Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana.

Smt. Atiya Sultana Vs The Director General Of police and 5 others

Battu Krishna, Vs The State of Telangana

Mekala Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana

Khaja Azeemuddin Vs The State of Telangana