Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 52085 (AP)

Maddila Gurumoorthy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP(PIL)/203/2025 · 2025-11-04

Challa Gunaranjan, Dhiraj Singh Thakur

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010575552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 203 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-7 [3552] Maddila Gurumoorthy ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V. Maheswar Reddy Advocates for Respondents : Mrs. S. Pranathi, Spl. G.P. CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 5th November 2025 P C : Two issues have been raised by the petitioner in the present PIL, one is with regard to non-implementation of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Prakash Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others1, where directions were issued inter alia for establishing Police Establishment Board in each State to decide all matters of transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The second issue that has been highlighted is that approximately 191 officers in the State Police Establishment had been kept in vacancy reserve and their services were not being properly utilized and had not been paid their salaries. 1 (2006) 8 SCC 1 2 HCJ & CGRJ W.P.(PIL) No.203 of 2025 2. In fact, there has been no grievance expressed by any of the officers who are stated to have not been paid their salary or, for that matter, none of the officers have ever complained about their being kept in some vacancy reserve. 3. It is settled law that PIL is meant for highlighting the grievance of those who have no voice and who belong to the marginalized and poorer sections of society, which is not the case at hand. Reference, in this regard, can be made to Jaipur Shahir Hindu Vikas Samithi Vs. State of Rajasthan2 and Janata Dal Vs. H. S. Chowdary3 4. Insofar as the argument that the directions of the Apex Court have not been followed in letter and spirit, we feel that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. 5. We find no cause to entertain the present petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J kbs 2 (2014) 5 SCC 530 3 (1992) 4 SCC 305 3 HCJ & CGRJ W.P.(PIL) No.203 of 2025 119 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN W.P.(PIL) No.203 of 2025 Dt: 05.11.2025 kbs