Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26109 (AP)

Molluri Ashok v. State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/24563/2020 · 2025-08-27

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010369092020 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: 24563/2020 Between: 1. MOLLURI ASHOK, S/O YADAYYA, AGED 30 YEARS, GOWDA BY CASTE, LAKSHMINARAYANA COLONY, IDA UPPAL, HYDERABAD, STATE OF TELANGANA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VISKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAVIKAMATHAM POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SOLOMON RAJU 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of police constables of respondent No 3 in repeatedly visiting the house of the petitioner and inciting him to give blood samples for DNA test in KG Hospital Visakhpatnam and send the same to Director FSL Mangalagiri without following any procedure of law despite the petitioner given his Blood Samples on 24 11 2020 as illegal irregular irrational amounts to exceeding the jurisdiction without obtaining necessary orders from competent court and also violative of provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the not to interfere with the 2 peaceful life and liberty of the petitioner except by due process of law” 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing survives for adjudication in the Writ Petition and the matter has become infructuous. 3. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________________________ Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 28.08.2025 Asr 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.24563 of 2020 Dt.28.08.2025 Asr