Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17641 (AP)

S. HIDAYATHULLA, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/13931/2021 · 2025-09-15

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010241292021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 13931/2021 Between: S. HIDAYATHULLA,, S/O. B.S. MOHAMMAD KHASIM, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 29-286, MAIN ROAD, TANAKALLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KADIRI, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TANAKALLU POLICE STATION, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 5. MOHAMMED RAFI, S/O.KHASIM PEERA, 52 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 13- 2-181/4, SRIDI SAI NAGAR, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not taking any action on the representation made by the petitioner on 2 24.04.2021 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to provide police protection on the application made by the petitioner on 24.04.2021 to the petitioner to enable him to do agricultural activities.” 2. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, would submit that, the matter is of civil nature and the Police cannot provide protection unless there is a direction from the Hon’ble Court. 3. Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. Considering the submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the Petitioner to pursue his remedy before the Civil Court where the civil suit is pending between the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:16.09.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.13931 of 2021 Dt.16.09.2025 Dinesh