Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25206 (AP)

KAMISETTY HANUMAIAH v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/23683/2020 · 2025-08-27

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010355962020 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: 23683/2020 Between: KAMISETTY HANUMAIAH, S/O AYYANNA R/O. DOKIPARRU VILLAGE, MEDIKONDURU 'MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR RURAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MEDIKONDURU POLICE STATION, MEDIKONDURU, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G KONDALA RAO 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 3rd respondent orally summoning the petitioner to the police station and detaining him days together without any reasons and forcibly making doing labour work with the petitioner in the 3rd respondent in police station is as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitionr under Articles, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to summon, not to detain and not making doing bonded labour work with the petitioner in the 3rd respondent police station.” 2 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri G.Kondala Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that no further orders are required in this matter as the relief sought in this petition has become infructuous. 3. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would submit that Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as the relief has become infructuous. 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.23683 of 2020 Dt.28.08.2025 Dinesh