Nagupilla Satish Kumar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/7075/2022 · 2025-11-12
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 52515 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 52515 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010118502022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7075/2022 Between:
1. NAGUPILLA SATISH KUMAR,, S/O N. PAPARAO AGE 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 10-173/10, OPPOSITE TO RAMALAYAM, VISALAKSHI NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM-530043.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PEDERU, VISAKHAPATNAM.
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PADERU POLICE STATION, PADERU, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. JARRA APPALA KONDALA RAO, S/O JARRA CHINNABBI, AGE 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NEAR RAMALAYAM TEMPLE BACK SIDE, SUNDRUPUTTU STREET, PADERU, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-
531024.
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. BANKA NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. NH AKBAR 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 respondent no. 3 and 4 harassing/ threating the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent not to harass the Petitioner by makings calls and calling them to the Police Station and pass.”
2
2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that nothing survives for adjudication in the Writ Petition and the matter has become infructuous.
3. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________________________ Dr.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
Date: 13.11.2025 RSD
3
25
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
W.P.No.7075 of 2022
Dt..13.11.2025
RSD