APHC010564432023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. TANGELLA NANAJI RAO, S/O. NOOKA RAJU, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O. CHL PURAM, NAKKAPALLI MANDAL ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, AMARAVTHI 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, S. RAYAVARAM POLICE STATION ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents police particularly the 4th respondent in calling the petitioner to his police station by interfering into the civil dispute wherein permanent injunction is in my favour passed in OS NO. 81 /2010 on the file of court of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge at Yellamanchili, calling the petitioner to the police station by giving IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 29222/2023 TANGELLA NANAJI RAO, S/O. NOOKA RAJU, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O. CHL PURAM, NAKKAPALLI MANDAL ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, S. RAYAVARAM POLICE STATION ANAKAPALLI 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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in ature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents police particularly the 4th respondent in calling the petitioner to his police station by interfering into the civil dispute wherein permanent injunction is in my OS NO. 81 /2010 on the file of court of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge at Yellamanchili, calling the petitioner to the police station by giving IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA TANGELLA NANAJI RAO, S/O. NOOKA RAJU, AGED 41 YEARS, R/O. CHL PURAM, NAKKAPALLI MANDAL ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL VELAGAPUDI, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANAKAPALLI, THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, S. RAYAVARAM POLICE STATION NDENT(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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in ature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents police particularly the 4th respondent in calling the petitioner to his police station by interfering into the civil dispute wherein permanent injunction is in my OS NO. 81 /2010 on the file of court of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge at Yellamanchili, calling the petitioner to the police station by giving threatening calls without having any valid reasons is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and also violative of the judgment of the apex court passed in Priyanka Srivasta Case and consequently direct the respondents police not to harass the petitioner by calling to the police station by giving threatening calls in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 particularly 4th respondent police not to call the petitioner to his police station frequently without having valid reasons by interfering into the civil disputes, pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 29222/2023 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents police particularly the 4th respondent in calling the petitioner to his police station by interfering into the civil dispute wherein permanent injunction is in my favour passed in OS NO. 81 /2010 on the file of court of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge at Yellamanchili, calling the petitioner to the police station by giving threatening calls without having any valid reasons is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and also violative of the judgment of the apex court passed in Priyanka Srivasta Case and consequently direct the respondents police not to harass the petitioner by calling to the police station by giving threatening calls in the interest of justice..…” 2. No representation for the petitioner. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on written instructions would submit that the police are not interfering in the civil disputes between the parties and never called the petitioner to the police station. 4. Considering the submissions made, the writ petition is disposed of. However, police are directed not to interfere in the civil disputes between the parties except under due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Dated 08.12.2025 KKV