<i r. APHC010430052025 JN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI S S o. WRIT PETITION NO: 23997 OF 2025 Between: A.Subramanyam, S/o Late A.Subbayya, Occ: Business, Aged about 48 years, R/o Dr.No.109, Balaji Nagar, Tirumala, Tirupati District. ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government Forest Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Tirupathi, at K.T.Road Tirupathi. 3, The Forest Range Officer, Tirupathi, at K.T.Road Tirupathi. 4. The Vigilance Security Officer, Vigilance Wing, Vaikuntam-1, Tirumala. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondents 2 to 4 in insisting me by deputing their Staff at our home to appear before their authority and insisting to confess in an alleged offence committed by unknown persons, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without Jurisdiction and some violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the personal life and liberty of petitioners otherwise than any known procedure established by law. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to insist the petitioners to appear before their authority nor interfere with petitioners' personal liberty and life otherwise than due procedure established by law, pending disposal of main Writ Petition pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R SUDHA RANI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following order: APHC010430052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, the Twenty Second day of September Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No. 23997 of 2025 Between: A.Subramanyam and State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioner: I.R.Sudha Rani Counsel for the respondents: 1. Government Pleader for Forests The Court made the following Order: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents No.2 to 4 in insisting the petitioner by deputing their staff at petitioner’s house to appear before their authority and insisting to confess in an alleged offence committed by some unknown persons as illegal, irregular, irrational without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the personal life and liberty of petitioner otherwise than any known procedure established by law and to pass such other order or orders which this Court deems fit in the interest of justice. ...Petitioner ...Respondents 2 BSB,J W.P.No.23997 of 2025 02. The case of the petitioner is as foliows:- On 21.06.1990, vide proceeding Roc.No.P04/224/AEO(Revenue) / Tirumala / 90, the then Executive Officer, Tirumala issued proceedings petitioner, to carry allotting a shop to Sri A.Subbaiah, the father of the the business of bangles etc. The father of the petitioner was granted permission to run a tea stall at Papavinasam, Tirumala vide proceeding Roc.No.Rev.4/96/1997 dated 09.05,1997 issued by T.T.D Authority, He paid rental charges of Rs.36,000/- per annum to the office of Forest petitioner died in the year a son, the petitioner, as his petitioners reported no objection, the petitioner to run the business in business in the same any objection from anybody. He has Range Officer. Tirumala. The father of the 2008 leaving behind him his daughters and heirs. As the sisters of the authorities granted the permission to the the same shop. Thus, the petitioner continued his shop since then, till date without been paying charaes regLifa?'! I V : i i O/ i! i i i 'O. The petitioner was elected and appointed for the wing of Right to Information Act, 2005 for year, 2024 the petitioner submitted General Secretary Tirupathi District. In the as a representation to the authorized officers requesting to furnish the details of charges collected of Papavinasam and also details of beneficiaries at tollgate of the shops allotted at Tirumala. Instead of furnishing information harassing the petitioner very often by deputing their staff at the house of the petitioner and some of them visiting the house of the authorities started the petitioner at odd hours and insisting his presence without registration of any crime against him. The petitioner belongs to weaker section of community and is below poverty line. The petitioner he approached the Ill-Additional District and Sessions by filing a petition seeking anticipatory bail vide C.F.R.No.473 of 2025. The petition was returned by an order dated 30,06.2025 apprehending illegal arrest. So IS Court at Tirupathi as there is no specific offence mentioned in the petition which discloses apprehending 3 BSB.J W.P.No.23997 of 2025 arrest in relation to any non-bailable offence. As there is no other go the petitioner filed the present petition. 03. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the staff of the respondents No.2 to 4 have been continuously interfering with the life and liberty of the petitioner for the reasons indicated in the petition. 04. The learned Assistant Government Pleader placed on record copy of written instructions of the District Forest Officer, Tirupathi vide Rc.No.2814 / 2025 / S3, dated 09.09.2025 wherein the instructions as follows: are Preliminary Objections: 1. Lack of Maintainability: The writ petition is not maintainable in law or on facts, as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate violation of any statutory duty by the respondents. 2. Suppression of Material Facts: The petitioner has deliberately suppressed the fact that his anticipatory bail petition (CFR No.473/2025) was dismissed, as devoid of merits by the ill Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati, on 30.06.2025. 3. Vague and Unsubstantiated Allegations: The allegations of harassment are vague and baseless. The petitioner has not filed any contemporaneous complaint with the police or higher authorities to substantiate these claims. Para-wise Remarks on Merits 1. Denial of Flarassment Allegations: The allegations that Forest and Vigilance staff visited the petitioner's residence or shop at odd hours and coerced him are false, baseless, and fabricated. No such action was ever undertaken by the Department. 4 BSB,J W.P.No.23997 of 2025 2. No violation of Fundamental Rights: The petitioner's claim of violation of Articles 14 and 21 is untenable. Mere apprehension, without any unlawful act by the respondents, does not amount to infringement of fundamental rights. 3. Petitioner's own violations: a. Improper Documentation: The documents produced by the petitioner regarding the tea stall do not constitute valid, subsisting permission to operate, b. Breach of EDC Resolution: The petitioner is in violation of several mandatory conditions (notably Clauses 2-6, 8. and 9) of the S.V. Puram EDC Resolution, dated 20.06.2024, which requires timely rent payment, garbage maintenance, and display of allotment / licence orders. c. Violation of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: The shop IS located within the Sri Venkateswara Wildlife Sanctuary ecologically sensitive area with wildlife , an movement (Sloth Bears, Leopards). Unauthorised operation disturbs wildlife and violates statutory provisions. d. Violation of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967: Any permanent or temporary commercial structure within a notified Reserved Forest is a punishable offence under Section 20 of the Act. e. Subject to Fligh Court Directions: The establishment is among the shops identified to be regulated pursuant to orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (PIL) Nos. 125/2023 and 207/2023. 5 BSB,J W.P.No.23997 of 2025 4. Misuse of R.T.I.Act; a. In 2024, the petitioner filed an RTI application seeking details of tollgate charges at Papa Vinashanam and allotment of shops. b. By official reply dated 25.07.2024, he was informed that the requested information is not required to be furnished under the R.T.I.Act. c. His only remedy was to prefer an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. Instead, he now alleges harassment to create a false narrative of retaliation. d. The RTI proceedings have no relevance to the present writ and do not confer immunity from enforcement of forest and wildlife laws. 5. Authority of Department: The very documents relied upon by the petitioner (1990 / 1997 allotments and subsequent resolutions) recognise the authority of Forest and TTD officials to enforce compliance through inspections. He cannot, therefore, claim immunity from lawful action.” 05. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the written instructions are against the record since the petitioner has not suppressed material facts, such as, filing of anticipatory bail petition, since the copy of the petition with the written order was submitted along with the petition and there is a mention about the same in the writ petition as well. He further submitted that since copies of permission granted, and receipts of payments made were enclosed to the petition, it is incorrect to state that the petition is supported by improper documentation. He bsb.j W.P.No,23997 of2025 further submitted that of the information the harassnien. against the petitioner is because sought by the petitioner under the R.T.I.Act therefore it is incorrect to state that the and proceedings under the R.T.I.Act have no relevance to the present writ petition. He further submitted that if at all there permission are no violations of the any other objection proper course to the '"suing notice etc., and that ' rneddled with. terms and conditions of the or violation as stated i or 'o the written instructions the :~ntsis,o,a.eactionasper,awbvi 'he personaliiberty Of me petitioner cannot be 06. The learned Assistant instructions, denied petition. Government Pleader, all the allegations basing on the written and requested to dismiss the 07. The documents filed by the petitioner Pr7/7?a /ac/e would show that his father was initially granted ler has peen permission to the shoo ana i,.o. Ui i r" ^ 11 u OI J ala continuing the same shop after the death a case where there i father. Therefore, encroachment petitioner would also at all there i of his it is not IS recent unauthorized or occupation of the same. The documents filed amounts were paid to the such as those I proper course is to take action by the department. If show that IS any violation mentioned in the written as per law and instructions, the interfering with the not by personal life and liberty of the petitioner. 08. In the result, the not to interfere with the running his business i procedure of law. It i necessary, strictly as per law. writ petition i >S allowed directing the respondents personal life and liberty of the petitioner 'a the subject shop and without following due respondents to take IS open for the action, if There shall be no orders as to costs. 7 BSB,J W.P.No.23997 of 2025 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Jf 9^ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Forest Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapud , Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Tirupathi, at K.T.RoacI, Tirupathi. 3. The Forest Range Officer, Tirupathi, at K.T.Road, Tirupathi. 4. The Vigilance Security Officer, Vigilance Wing, Vaikuntam-1, Tirumala. 5. One CC to Smt R Sudha Rani, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to GP for Forests, High Court of Andhra FYadesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:22/09/2025 ORDER WP.NO. 23997 OF 2025 allowing the wp WITHOUT COSTS