Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 39391 (AP)

Pipuri Prabhakar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/43513/2018 · 2025-07-20

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010897472018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 43513/2018 Between: 1. PIPURI PRABHAKAR, S/O.LATE P.BATHAIAH, AGED ABOUT.55 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, R/O.CHERLOPALLI H/W, SRIKALAHASTI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. PIPURI PURUSOTHAM,, S/O.LAT P.BATHAIAH, AGED ABOUT. 52 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, R/O.CHERLOPALLI H/W, SRIKALAHASTI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR. 3. THE SHO, SRIKALAHASTI RURAL PS, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE THASILDAR, SRIKALAHASTI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. SRI Y JAYARAMAIAH, S/O.Y.NAGURAIAH, AGED ABOUT.50 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.6-577, NAGULAGUNTA, SIRKALAHASTI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. SMT Y CHANDRA LEELAVATHI, W/O.JAYARARNAIAH, AGED ABOUT.48 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.6-577, NAGULAGUNTA, SIRKALAHASTI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 7. SRI Y KIRAN, S/O.Y.JAYARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT. 30 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.6-577, NAGULAGUNTA, SIRKALAHASTI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NAGARAJU NAGURU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2 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 in-action of the respondents No.2 and 3 couldn't register any case against the respondents No.5 to 7 as arbitrary, illegal against Art.19, 21, 26 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents No.2 to 4 permit the petitioners, devotees in the village to participate prayers in Galedu Prardhan Mandiram, Cherlopalli Village, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District.” 2. Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that, in view of the pendency of civil disputes between the Petitioners and Respondent Nos.5 to 7, the Police are not interfering with the same. 3. For ready reference, the written instructions are extracted hereunder: “It is submitted that as the both parties were indulging in frequent letter to the Tahsildar. Srikalahasti Mandal on dated 25.7.2018 to issue 145 quarrels, the Station House Officer, Srikalahasti Rural P.S.. has addressed a Cr.P.C proceedings in order to maintain law and order in the area, on that the Tahsildar. Srikalahasti Mandal has issued notice dated 28.8.2018 to both parties to appear before him. That instead of appearing before the Tahsildar, Srikalahasti Mandal, the petiotners had filed a W.P.No.35761/2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court disposed off the writ petition on dated 23.11.2018. It is submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner that the respondents No.3 & 4 colluded with respondents No.5 to 7 and issued notices U/s.145 Cr.P.C is false and denied and herewith, that in order to maintain law and order in the area, the Station House Officer, Srikalahasti Rural P.S., has addressed a letter to the Tahsildar. Srikalahasti Mandal to issued 145 Cr.P.C., as notices were issued U/s. 145 Cr.P.C to the petitioners, but the petitioners instead of appearing before the Tahsildar, Srikalahasti Mandal filed the present writ petition. It is submitted that till now 145 Cr.P.C proceedings are not issued by the Tahsildar, Srikalahasti Mandal, as the petitioners did not respond to the Notices issued by the Tahsildar, Srikalahasti Mandal.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the court may pass appropriate orders. 3 5. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioners are at liberty to work out their remedies before appropriate forum in accordance with law. 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:21.07.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.43513 of 2018 Dt.21.07.2025 Dinesh