1 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 APHC010361752019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 17209/2019 Between: 1. REDDI GOVINDA RAO, S/O. REDDY AKKU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RIO. 18-69, COOPERATIVE COLONY, MAIN ROAD, CHODAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMRAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER IV TOWN POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IV TOWN POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. SRI K SIVAJI, CIRCLE INSPECTOR,CYBER CELL, VIJAYAWADA POLICE COMMISSIONERATE. 2 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 7. SMT SK FATIMA, D/O.SK.EMAM,SUB INSPECTOR, CYBER CELL, VIJAYAWADA POLICE COMMISSIONERATE. RESPONDENT NO.6 AND 7 ARE SUO MOTO IMPLEADS AS PER C.O.DT.06.05.2025 IN W.P.NO.17209 OF 2019. ...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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce Reddi Gowtham S/o. Govindrao, and Elanti Lochinni W/o. Reddi Gowtham, residents of House No.11, First Floor, Road No.1, RTC Colony, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh before this Hon'ble Court by declaring their detention is illegal and release forthwith, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 Pleased to recall the docket order dated 01-10-2020 in the above Wp. 17209/2019 in So far as it is related to the issue whethere in the circumstances which are prevailing in the sate of AP the court can record a finding that there is consititutional break down in the state or no " as for consideration in the above WP. 17209/2019 IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 take up " the question as to whether in the circumstances which are prevailing in the state of Andhra Pradesh the court can record a finding that there is constitutional break down in the state or not", and not to insist the said question for consideration in the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 be pleased to pass appropriate orders recusing Hon'ble Sri Justice Rakesh Kumar from hearing the W.P.No.17209, 17099, 17122/2019, W.P.No.2167, 4434. 6554, 14544, c6306, 0345/2CJ.ZU and WP (PIL) No.45/2020 in the 3 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 interest of justice, fairness and impartial adjudication and pass such other order IA 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 pleased to direct the respondents to take appropriate action as per law on representations made by the petitioner dated 03.01.2025 & 06.01.2024 and his son, the illegally detained persons, Reddi Gowtham dated : 29.10.2024 and dispose off by a speaking order by giving the petitioner and the persons detained Sri Reddi Gowtham and his wife an opportunity of hearing Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAVITEJA PADIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. R ANNAPURNA 2. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) 3. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY 4. V V SATISH 5. S S PRASAD 4 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri Raviteja Padiri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned government pleader for the official Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and Smt. R. Annapurna, learned counsel for respondent No.7. 2. On 27.09.2019, Smt. E. Lochini, who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner in the present case, filed W.P.No.15157 of 2019 seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus, for production of her husband Sri Reddy Gowtham, on the ground that he had been detained by the police personnel from Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada. Thereafter, she also filed a complaint before the Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada seeking legal action against 11 persons, including police personnel for having illegally abducted her husband. W.P.No.15157 of 2019 came to be withdrawn, on 15.10.2019, on the representation of the learned Government Pleader that Sri Reddy Gowtham had been released after giving a notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. 3. Smt. E. Lochini, being aggrieved by the inaction of the Patamata Police Station in registering her complaint, filed on 13.10.2019, approached this Court again, by way of W.P.No.16111 of 2019. This Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court, by an order, dated 17.10.2019, directing the Patamata Police Station to consider the complaint given by Smt. E. Lochini and to take action in accordance with law and in accordance with the ratio laid 5 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of U.P & Ors.1 4. It is contended by the petitioner, that on 25.10.2019, certain police personnel from Machavaram Police Station had visited the office of the learned counsel of Smt. E. Lochini and sought details of the persons in the office. The petitioner contends that his son Reddy Gowtham and his daughter- in-law Smt. E. Lochini were forcibly taken away by three persons who claimed to be police personnel, from their house in RTC colony, Vijayawada at about 7.30 to 8.00 a.m. on 28.10.2019. The three persons identified themselves as Sri M.V. Babu (Sub-Inspector) and a Head Constable and a lady constable. On 29.10.2019, the petitioner herein is said to have approached the IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam to find out if his son and daughter-in-law were being detained. As no satisfactory answer was being given and as the petitioner had received information that his son was being moved back to Vijayawada, the petitioner approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition, on 31.10.2019. The petitioner contends that on 03.11.2019 Sri Shaik Mohammad Ismail, one of the advocates on record in the present Writ Petition, had received a call from the Patamata Police Station and both the writer in the police station as well as the Sub-Inspector spoke to the learned counsel seeking details and for closure of the Writ Petition. 1 MANU.SC/1166/2013 6 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 5. On 04.11.2019, both Sri Reddy Gowtham and Smt. E. Lochini had given a complaint to the II A.C.M.M, Visakhapatnam stating that they had been illegally detained. On the same day, the Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam has been filed his counter affidavit before this Court. A reply to this counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 06.11.2019. 6. While these proceedings were going on, three male persons and one lady in civil dress and one male person in a police uniform, visited the house of Shaik Mohammad Ismail, on 07.11.2019, between 5.00 a.m to 6.30 a.m, stating that they are from Machavaram police station and took a statement from him. The learned counsel in his affidavit, filed before this Court, contends that these police personnel illegally entered into his house and searched the entire house before recording his statement. Sri Shaik Mohammad Ismail contends that on 07.11.2019 itself he had received a call from one Srinivasa Raju, who is said to be a friend of Reddy Gowtham asking him to close the Habeas Corpus petition as the police personnel were pressurizing him. 7. In view of the various allegations and counter allegations, this Court, on 21.11.2019 had directed the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam to nominate a Senior Civil Judge for conducting an enquiry into the question of when Reddy Gowtham and his wife Smt. E. Lochini had been detained by the police officials and other issues. The Principal District 7 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 Judge appointed the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam to conduct an enquiry. After completion of enquiry, the VII additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam gave his report on 12.01.2020. Objections to this report were also filed by the police personnel of IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 8. In the course of the hearings of this case, certain interlocutory orders came to be passed. These interlocutory orders and proceedings were challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which had stayed further proceedings in the present case. After, disposal of the petitions, the Writ petition came to be taken up by this court. Sri K. Sivaji and Smt. Shaik Fathima who were the Circle Inspector, Cyber Cell, Vijayawada Police and Sub-Inspector, Cyber Cell, Vijayawada, were impleaded, Eonominee, as respondents 6 and 7. These respondents have also filed their counter affidavits. 9. The primary issues before this Court, in the present Writ Petition are – 1) Whether Sri Reddy Gowtham and Smt. E. Lochini, who are the detenus in the present case had been detained by the police authorities from their house in Vijayawada on 28.10.2019 or whether both the detenus had been arrested in Chodavaram on 01.11.2019? 2) Whether the visit of the police personnel of the cyber crimes cell of the Vijayawada police, on 07.11.2019, to the house of Shaik 8 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 Mohammad Ismail, learned counsel for the petitioner was done for the purpose of pressurizing the learned counsel to withdraw the Writ Petition and whether such a visit and recording of his statement in accordance with law? Issue No.1: 10. The petitioner, in his Writ Petition, filed on 31.10.2019, had stated that both his son and daughter-in-law had been taken away by persons, claiming to be police personnel, from their house in RTC Colony, Vijayawada, at about 7.30 to 8.00 a.m on 28.10.2019. The petitioner also states that the detenus were moved to Visakhapatnam in a private vehicle and were again moved to Vijayawada on 30.10.2019. On 04.11.2019, the Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam filed a counter affidavit stating that both Reddy Gowtham and his wife Smt. E. Lochini had been arrayed as accused in Crime No.393 of 2019 under Sections 420 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C, on 09.10.2019 in IV Town police station, Visakhapatnam. It is further stated that the Investigating Officer Sri K. Nemaram Babu, Sub-Inspector having obtained reliable information about the presence of these two persons, in Chodavaram area, had apprehended these two persons at Venkannapalem Junction, near Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District, on 01.11.2019, at 5.00 p.m and that they were produced before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam City who remanded them to judicial custody on 02.11.2019 at about 4.50 p.m. The petitioner filed a reply to this counter 9 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 affidavit reiterating his contention that his son and daughter-in-law had been taken away on 28.10.2019 at about 7.30 to 8.00 a.m. He further added that the detenus were taken to Visakhapatnam through a private vehicle bearing No. AP 16 TJ 2345 and that they were again brought back to Vijayawada in the early morning of 31.10.2019 for the purpose of searching the house of Reddy Gowtham and that the detenus were taken back to Visakhapatnam after completion of such a search. The petitioner contended that news items published in Sakshi Telugu news paper and Eenadu newspaper on 30.10.2019 stating that these two persons were in the custody of the police. The petitioner also relies upon a video clip that is said to have been taken on 31.10.2019, which establishes the fact that both the detenus were already in the 4th respondent police station on 31.10.2019 itself. In view of these disputed facts, this Court had directed the Principal District Judge to nominate a Senior Civil Judge in Visakhapatnam District to conduct an enquiry in to these disputed facts and to submit a report to this Court. The Principal District Judge appointed the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam to conduct the said enquiry. The VII Additional Senior Civil Judge framed the following three issues for determination. 1) Whether the detenus Reddy Gowtham and Ellanti Lochani have been arrested by IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam city on 28.10.2019 at 7.30 a.m at their residence i.e. House No.11, First Floor, Road No.1, RTC Colony, Vijayawada and brought to Visakhapatnam and kept them in their custody till 01.11.2019 in 10 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 which date the detenus were allegedly arrested by the police at Venkannapelm, Near Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District? 2) Whether the police personnel visited the house of the advocate Sri Shaik Mohammad Ismail on 07.11.2019 in between 5.00 to 6.00 a.m at his house Door No.54-18-49/A, 1st floor, 1st lane, Midhulanagar, LIC Colony, Opp: Lakshmi Heights Apartments, Near Amma Kalyana Mandapam, Vijayawada? 3) Whether the Inspector of Police and Head constable of Patamata Police Station have spoken to Sri Shaik Mohammad Ismail, Counsel for detenus, over his mobile phone bearing No.9700035322 from the mobile No.9030239472? 11. On issue No.1, the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge took the view that the investigating officer namely N. Babu and Head Constable Sri B. Ramana had traveled from Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam on 28.10.2019, by way of private vehicle. The VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, after comparing the cell tower location of the mobile being used by the Investigating Officer as well as the mobile being used by the driver of vehicle bearing No. AP 16 TJ 2345 had taken the view that the investigating officer had been travelling in this car from Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam on 28.10.2019. However, the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, did not give any categorical finding as to whether Smt. E. Lochni was travelling in this car or not. On issue Nos.2 and 3, the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge held that police personnel had visited the house of Shaik Mohammad Ismail on 07.11.2019 and that the Sub-Inspector 11 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 of Patamata Police Station and the Head Constable of the Patamata Police Station had spoken to Shaik Mohammad Ismail and the transcript of that conversation produced by Shaik Mohammad Ismail was not in dispute. The Investigating Officer filed his objections to the enquiry report submitted by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 12. While the matter was pending before this Court, certain departmental proceedings were initiated on the basis of the report of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The Commissioner of Police, NTR Commissionerate, Vijayawada initiated disciplinary proceedings against respondents 6 and 7. These disciplinary proceedings culminated in the proceedings of the Commissioner, dated 15.04.2025. In these proceedings, the 7th respondent was awarded a punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year without effect on future increment and pension. However, the disciplinary proceedings against the 6th respondent were dropped. On a similar note proceedings had been initiated against the Investigating Officer as well as the Inspector of Police of IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, on the basis of the enquiry report of 12.01.2020. An inquiry is said to have been conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Dwarka Sub Division, Visakhapatnam. The Inquiry officer submitted a report dated 02.12.2021, exonerating the delinquent officers. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings, against the delinquent officers, were closed on the ground that the complaint made against these persons were not proved. 12 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 13. The issue that has come up in this Writ Petition as well as the issue that was required to be addressed by the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam City was the question of whether the two detenus had been detained by the personnel of IV Town police station, Visakhapatnam on 28.10.2019 or on 01.11.2019. This issue, has been carefully sidelined, and the inquiry was conducted on the question of whether investigation has been carried out properly or not in Crime No.393 of 2019. The inquiry officer, throws out the depositions of the witnesses examined by the 7th Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, on the ground that their evidence was recorded, ex parte. However, no attempt is made to examine any of these witnesses afresh. The version put forth by the delinquent officers is accepted, without the same being tested at all. It is clear from the manner in which, the disciplinary authority, as well as the enquiry authority have formulated the charges and the manner in which they have gone about deciding these charges, that the primary issue has been swept under carpet and has not been touched at all. 14. The complaint of the petitioner was that his son and daughter-in- law had been picked up on 28.10.2019 from Vijayawada and taken to Visakhapatnam in a private vehicle. The immediate response of the Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station was that they had not been picked up on 28.10.2019 and had been arrested only on 01.11.2019 in Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District. At that stage, no mention was made as to whether the Investigating Officer and his team were in Vijayawada on 28.10.2019. It was 13 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 only when, the movement of the Investigating Officer between Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam came up on account of the tower location data, that it was stated that the Investigating Officer had in fact been in Vijayawada on 28.10.2019, for investigation in some other case. It was further contended that the detenus themselves had hired a private vehicle and had moved from Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam on 28.10.2019 and had thereafter come back to Vijayawada and later travelled back to Chodavaram on 01.11.2019. The driver of the private vehicle, in which the detenus are said to have travelled from Vijayawada to Visakhapatnam, on 28.10.2019, had given a statement before the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam that five persons have travelled with him on that day, including a person who was identified as a Sub-Inspector. It is curious that no effort has been made in any manner to find out who this Sub-Inspector was and why he was travelling along with the detenus on 28.10.2019. 15. These anomalies do not inspire any confidence, in this Court, in the inquiry report of 02.12.2021, prepared by the Assistant Commissioner, Dwarka Sub Division, Visakhapatnam, Remedial steps would have to be taken in this regard. Issue No.2: 16. There is no dispute that the 7th respondent, on the instructions of 6th respondent, had visited the house of Shaik Mohammad Ismail, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the present case, on 07.11.2019 14 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 between 5.00 a.m to 6.30 a.m. It is contended by the respondents 6 and 7 that the said visit was in relation to another case and was not in relation to the present case. 17. The memorandum of objections filed by the 7th respondent to the report of 12.01.2020 and the affidavit filed by her, before this Court, state the same facts. According to the 7th respondent, a report was received by the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City from the Joint Director APCRDA, Vijayawada about certain persons trying to defraud people by promising jobs in APCRDA. This report also stated that a fake website had been set up and a telephone number bearing 7075954144 had been used by the persons running this fraudulent scheme. This petition is said to have been endorsed to the cyber crime police station on 31.10.2019. The 6th respondent Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station thereupon endorsed the report to the 7th respondent for conducting a preliminary enquiry. In this enquiry, it was found that the aforesaid cell phone was being used within the area of the tower situated at Amma Kalyana Mandapam, L.I.C Colony, Vijayawada. Thereafter, the 7th respondent, on instructions of the 6th respondent Inspector, on 07.11.2019 had visited the house of Shaik Mohammad Ismail along with one Bhanu Kiran of Cyber Crime Police Station, Sri Soram of Machavaram Police Station. The 7th respondent states that she had merely spoken to Shaik Mohammad Ismail without going into the house and had recorded a statement from him and obtained his signature. It is also stated that subsequently, Sri 15 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 Sultan Basha Shaik was identified as the culprit, in that case and was arrested, on 11.11.2019, in Crime No.269 of 2019 of Governorpet Police Station. 18. The material placed before this Court shows that a report was received by the Commissioner of Police and subsequently endorsed through the 6th respondent to the 7th respondent. However, the fact also remains that no crime had been registered, on this issue, by 07.11.2019, and the action of the 7th respondent in going to the house of Sri Shaik Mohammad Ismail and recording a statement from him is clearly not in accordance with law. The 7th respondent contends that an entry was made in the general diary and such an entry is sufficient for her to record statements from any person. 19. In the present case, the person from whom the statement is recorded, is an advocate. Further, he was an advocate appearing for the petitioner in a highly contested matter, relating to the liberty of the son and daughter-in-law of the petitioner. It is too much of a coincidence that the 7th respondent goes to the house of the counsel for the petitioner, early in the morning at 5.00 a.m to record a statement. A perusal of the statement, said to have been recorded, only strengthens the view of this Court that the said visit was not a coincidence. In the statement, the learned counsel, answered queries relating to his personal details including the details of the members of his family. There was not a single question as to whether he was utilizing the telephone in question or whether he had any information about any of the 16 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 issues that had been highlighted by the Commissioner, APCRDA. Further, the call data and tower location of the phone in question, only showed that the phone was being used in the area of the tower located on Amma Kalyana Mandapam. There is no material to show that it was narrowed down to the building in which Sri Shaik Mohammad Ismail was residing. It appears that only Sri Shaik Mohammad Ismail, has been questioned and no other persons in that locality had been questioned, in this regard. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that the police authorities, under the guise of investigation, in another case, made an attempt to pressurize Sri Shaik Mohammad Ismail and the other Counsel, appearing in this case, to withdraw the case. Such actions cannot be condoned by this court. 20. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 6th and 7th respondents have been placed before this Court. The Commissioner, NTR Commissionerate, by his proceedings, dated 15.04.2025, had stopped one increment, without cumulative effect. Though, this court is of the opinion that the said punishment is not sufficient, it is not interfering with the said order, on the ground that she was following the instructions of the 6th respondent, who was her superior. 21. As far as the 6th respondent is concerned, the material before the Commissioner, NTR Commissionerate as well as this Court, clearly shows that the 7th respondent was in continuous communication with the 6th 17 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 respondent and the actions taken by the 7th respondent were after consulting and obtaining permission from 6th respondent. There is no explanation as to why the 7th respondent alone is held responsible for the misconduct committed by the police personnel on 07.11.2019. The 6th respondent would be equally liable for disciplinary action. In fact, the 6th respondent would be liable for greater disciplinary action as he was a person who had been in the police department for quite some time and was to guide the 7th respondent in the conduct of the enquiry or investigation. The conclusion drawn by the Commissioner, NTR Commissionerate that proceeding should be dropped against the 6th respondent is arbitrary and needs to be set aside. 22. The detenus had been released on 29.01.2020 itself, by way of an order of bail. However, the question of whether they had been detained on 28.10.2019 or on 01.11.2019 has not been answered satisfactorily. The enquiry report of the VII additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam was a preliminary enquiry which clearly raised doubts about the version of the Investigating Officer. The authorities, while conducting the disciplinary proceedings against the Investigating Officer and the Circle Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapantam as stated above, have deliberately overlooked the main issue and closed the disciplinary proceedings in a wholly unsatisfactory manner. 23. For these reasons, this Court disposes of this Writ Petition with the following directions: 18 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 1. The common inquiry report submitted by Sri RVSN. Murthy, Enquiry Officer-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Police, Dwaraka Sub- Division, Visakhapatnam City, dated 02.12.2021, is set aside and a fresh enquiry shall be conducted again. This inquiry shall be for the purposes of ascertaining whether the detenues were arrested on 28.10.2019 or 01.11.2019. 2. The inquiry officer shall go into the question of the movement of the Investigating Officer on 28.10.2019 and whether the Investigating Officer was travelling between Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam in the vehicle, said to have been hired by Sri Reddy Gowtham. 3. The Enquiry Officer shall also find out, as to why the newspapers had reported, on 30.10.2019, that Reddy Gowtham and Smt. E. Lochini had been arrested when they had not been arrested, according to the investigating officer, till 01.11.2019. 4. The Enquiry Officer shall also examine the petitioner in W.P.No.17209 of 2019, Sri Gowtham Reddy as well as Sri E. Lochini before arriving at any conclusion about the time and place of detention of these two persons. Needless to say, these persons shall be permitted to place all or any material to make good their claim that they were detained on 28.10.2019 itself. 19 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 5. This inquiry shall be conducted by a police officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police and shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of this order and copies of the said report would be served on the petitioner and the detenue in this case. 6. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, shall pass fresh orders, against the delinquent officers, after receipt of the inquiry report. 7. It would also be open to the petitioner or the detenue, in this case, to challenge the inquiry report, before this Court, if they are aggrieved by the said report or subsequent order of the Commissioner. 8. The proceedings of the Commissioner, NTR Commissionerate, dated 15.04.2025, in relation to the 6th respondent are set aside and the Commissioner shall take a fresh decision on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 6th respondent. The Commissioner shall also take into account the fact that the 7th respondent had acted under the instructions of the 6th respondent and that the 6th respondent had been supervising the 7th respondent continuously in the matter. 9. The Commissioner, NTR Commissionerate shall pass fresh orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 20 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ____________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J RJS 21 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019 THE HON’ABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.17209 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 15.10.2025 RJS 22 RRR,J& TCDS,J W.P.No.17209 of 2019