Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11208 (AP)

K Muruga Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/7422/2021 · 2025-09-16

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010128692021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7422/2021 Between: 1. K MURUGA REDDY, S/O K KRISHNA REDDY AGED 55 YEARS, OCC. POLITICIAN, RIO. DO. NO. 5-98, NTR COLONY, SUB COURT BACK SIDE, PUTTUR TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, AT TIRUPATI. 3. KONDAIAH DSP, S/O. NOT KNOW THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, COMMAND CONTROL, MR PAILI POLICE QUARTERS, NEW BALAJI COLONY, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. SAINADH, S/0. NOT KNOWN CIRCLE INSPECTOR, POLICE TRAINING CENTER, LAKSHMI NAGAR, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 5. S HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O. NOT KNOW SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTTUR SUB DIVISION, NARAYANAVANAM ( POST AND MANDAL) CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, AT 2 PUTTUR. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 to issue writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 2 and 6 to consider his representation dt.30-12- 2020 submitted by the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent consider his representation dt. 30-12-2020 submitted by the petitioner and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 consider his representation dt.30-12-2020 submitted by the petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of Justice., pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “….to issue a writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 6 to consider his representation dt.30.12.2020 submitted by the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent consider his representation dt.30.12.2020 submitted by the petitioner and pass….” 2. There is no representation for the petitioner. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that they have not received any representation from the petitioner seeking registration of any crime. 4. Recording the submission, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 17.09.2025 SNI 4 31 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7422/2021 Dt.17.09.2025 SNI