Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23763 (AP)

J.Mahaboob Peera, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/22155/2020 · 2025-09-01

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010334112020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 22155/2020 Between: 1. J.MAHABOOB PEERA,, S/O. J.NABI RASOOL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.18-757-A, NEERUGANTI STREET, OLD TOWN, ANANTHAPURAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETHRIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT AT ANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DHARMAVARAM RURAL POLICE STATION, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR 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 action of the Respondent No 3 in sending Police Constables and Police personnel to the as house well as to the business place of the Petitioner without any valid and reason repeatedly calling him to the Police Station and making him to the wait in the repeatedly calling him to the Police Station and making him to the of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Articles 14 191g and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Nos 2 and 3 not to interfere into the right to life and personal liberty and right to business of the Petitioner” 2. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there may be a direction to the respondent-police not to call the petitioner to the police station. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the police are directed not to call the petitioner to the Police Station without there being any registration of crime against him. 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:02.09.2025 Asr 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.22155 of 2020 Dt.02.09.2025 Asr