APHC010566672022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 34567/2022 Between: 1. M. RAMADEVI, W/O.LATE M. SRIRAMULU, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, R/O.19-04-269-A, VINAYAKA NAGAR, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE, MANGALAGIRI HIGHWAY ROAD, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OFFICE OF DIG., ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANANTAPURAMU. 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTAKAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GUNTAKAL RURAL CIRCLE POLICE STATION, GUNTAKAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 7. V R VIGHNESWARA REDDY, S/O. RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. KANAKADRIPALLI VILLAGE, KOLIMIGUNDLA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 8. KATASANI CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, S/O. NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-178, PENDEKANTI NAGAR, BANAGANAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 9. SATYANARAYANA, S/O. NOT KNOWN THE PETITIONER, BANAGANAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 10. G P HEMAKOTI REDDY, S/O. NOT KNOWN THE PETITIONER, BANAGANAPALLI VILLAGE 86 MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 11. TIMMA REDDY, S/O. NOT KNOWN THE PETITIONER, 2 BANAGANAPALLI VILLAGE 86 MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 12. G P MANTAKALLU REDDY, S/O. NOT KNOWN THE PETITIONER, BANAGANAPALLI VILLAGE AND, MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 13. JETTI MAHESH CHOWDARY, S/O. NOT KNOWN THE PETITIONER, BANAGANAPAILI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 an appropriate writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 in not considering the complaint made in Spandana Grievance Cell dated 05.09.2022, the complaint dated 17.09.2022, for providing police protection as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, violation of principles of natural justice and to consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 6 to provide police protection in view of the injunction granted in IA No.639 of 2017 dated 22.09.2017 and 06.10.2019, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G R SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “ ... to issue an appropriate writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 6 in not considering the complaint made in Spandana Grievance Cell dated 05.09.2022, the complaint dated 17.09.2022, for providing police protection as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, violation of principles of natural justice and to consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 6 to provide police protection in view of the injunction granted in IA No.639 of 2017 dated 22.09.2017 and 06.10.2019, and pass ....” Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. Perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that respondent Police did not consider the complaint of the Petitioner made in SPANDANA Grievance cell and also the Police seeking police protection. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Police on instructions would submit that civil suit is pending before the trial Court. Petitioner made a complaint in SPANDANA Grievance Cell seeking police aid which was returned since the representation of the Petitioner is pending with the Police and would submit that this Writ Petition may be disposed of by passing appropriate orders. In that view, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Petitioner is at liberty to work out the remedy before the concerned Civil Court where the suit is pending, 4 according to law. Learned Trial Judge is directed to take an appropriation decision over the matter after hearing both sides, according to law. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 34567 of 2022 18.11.2025 Mjl /*