Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gangineni Kondala Rao, Hyd. vs Prl. Secy., Home Dept. Ano. on 16 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI [ 3310 ]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 25105 OF 2014
Between:
1. GANGINENI KONDALA RAO, HYD., S/o Murthaiah, aged about 44 years,
Occ: Advocate, High Court, D.NO. 11-20-42.Flat No.42, Plot No.G8, Huda
Complex, Saroomagar, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. PRL SECY HOME DEPT ANO, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Lakdikapool,
Hyderabad
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in
considering the petitioner representation dated 14-8-2014 as illegal, arbitrary
and contrary to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution of
India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner
representation dated 14-8-2014 and take appropriate action basing on the
representation
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 31400 OF 2014)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
direct the 2nd respondent consider the Representation of the petitioner dated
14-8-2014, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. SANAGA ASHOK KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent
in considering the petitioner representation dated 14.8.2014 as illegal and
arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri S. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for
the respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the Advocate.
One Kapilavayi Siva Prasad and Suresh Panchariya are his clients and both
of them involved in disputes. The said Kapilavayi Siva Prasad with a view to
settle his scores with Suresh Panchariya, lodged a false complaint
implicating the petitioner and his wife as accused. Thereafter, the
concerned police registered a case in Crime No.80 of 2013 under Section
420 IPC on the file of Narasaraopet II Town Police station. It is stated the
concerned police are involved in settle the civil disputes between the defacto
complainant and the 1st accused and registered a false case implicated the
petitioner and his wife and came to his house with their subordinates and
with some other strangers and trying to arrest the petitioner. While the
matter stood thus, both the 1st accused and the defacto complainant
compromised the matter and the 1st accused got registered a land belongs to
his father's brother in favour of the defacto complainant. Immediately the
concerned police referred the matter to Lok Adalat and deleted all other
names except accused Nos.1 and 2. It is stated that the G.O.ms.No.288
dated 6.11.2010 has been issued in pursuance of the so many Supreme
Court and High Court judgments in which it has laid down some modalities
in order to see that immediate relief is given to the victims and appropriate
action is to be taken against the erring police officers who are interfering in
civil disputes. In pursuance of the said G.O, the Government of Andhra
Pradesh constituted District Level Committees, Commissionarate Level
Committees to monitor the cases of interference of police in civil disputes.
In pursuance of the above G.O., the Inspector General of Police is the
Chairman for the District Level for the redressal of grievances arising out of
police people involving in civil disputes. On 18.2.2014 the petitioner made a
representation to the Inspector General of Police, Guntur for taking
necessary action. But the respondents did not take any action so far.
Hence, the present writ petition.
4. On hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader has furnished a
copy of written instructions dated 4.9.2014 issued by the Inspector of Police,
Narasaraopet II Town P.S., Guntur District and contended that after detailed
enquiry, the SDPO Narasaraopet has submitted a report to the
Superintendent of Police, Guntur vide NRC No.67/Petn/SDPO-NRT.2014
dated 18.3.2014 stating that there were not interference of the police and
their harassment and that the SHO Narasaraopet II Town P.S. has
discharged his legitimate duties in conducting the investigation in Cr.No.80
of 2013 under Section 420 IPC. The petitioner and his wife and 5 others are
the accused persons and the case is under investigation. It is further
contended that the SHO, Narasaraopet II Town PS., has never harassed,
threatened and interfered with the civil dispute of the petitioner at any point
of time.
5. Recording the above submissions of learned Assistant Government
Pleader, nothing survives in the present writ petition and the same is liable
to be closed.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as
to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
DR.K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Gvl
