Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17901 (AP)

GOMATA NAVEEN RAO v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/12300/2024 · 2025-08-27

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010247412024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 12300/2024 Between: GOMATA NAVEEN RAO, S/O G NARASIMHA RAO, OCC BUSINESS, R/O 9-174, KRISHNA MAHAL CENTRE, CHILAKALURIPET, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 522616. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ARUNDALPET, LINGAMGUNTIA, NARASARAOPET, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ONE TOWN POLICE STATION NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHILAKALURIPETA POLICE STATION PALNADU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 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 inaction of the respondents more particularly Respondents 2 and 3, in respect of my representation dated 02.05.2024 against some persons who were threatening me with dire consequences, instead of taking action against them the respondents 3 and 4, without there being registration of any criminal case interfering with civil disputes, is highly unwarranted without jurisdiction, highly unjust, illegal and violative of articles 14, 21 of Constitution of India and 2 consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 02.05.2024, and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the civil disputes.” 2. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would submit that the Police are not calling the Petitioner to the Police Station and not interfering in the civil disputes between the parties. 3. Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, recording the same, the petition may be disposed of. 4. Considering the submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Police not to call the Petitioner to the Police Station, in the absence of any crime registered against him and not to interfere in the civil disputes 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:28.08.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.12300 of 2024 Dt.28.08.2025 Dinesh