APHC010483692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 26009/2025 Between: 1. THUMMA OMKAR,, S/O NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O 22-13-47, AMBEDKAR COLONY TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, TIRUPATHI. . 4. THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUMALA, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TIRUMALA TOWN-LL PS, POLICE COMPLEX, TIRUMALA. 6. THE INSPECTOR VIGILANCE, TTD VIGILANCE WING, TIRUMALA. 7. SRI SRIRAMUDU, THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, TIRUMALA TOWN-LL PS, POLICE COMPLEX, TIRUMALA. 8. SRI SHANKAR BABU, THE INSPECTOR (VIGILANCE), TTD VIGILANCE WING, TIRUMALA 9. SRI SHOBHAN, POLICE CONSTABLE, TIRUMALA TOWN-LL PS, POLICE COMPLEX, TIRUMALA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J.V.PHANIDUTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to DECLARE the action of the respondent No. 3 in not considering my representation dated 03.07.2025 requesting to change the 4th respondent as enquiry officer against the respondent officials No. 4 to 8 for snatching my 2 mobiles, copying the entire data in my mobiles including my very sensitive and personal data in the mobiles, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of my right to privacy, contrary to articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently COMMAND the respodnent No. 3 to enquire into the allegations against the respondents No. 6 to 8 through another officer not being the 4th respondent, in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard Sri J.V.Phaniduth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.8308 of 2025 seeking a direction to the police to enquire into the representation made by him. Pursuant to the orders passed in the said writ petition, the Superintendent of Police appointed respondent No.4 i.e., the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Tirumala, Tirupathi as the Enquiry Officer. It is contended that since the allegations are against the said officer, the enquiry ought to be entrusted to some other officer. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 3 5. In light of the submissions made, since the allegations are against respondent No.4, i.e., the Assistant Superintendent of Police, he cannot investigate his own case. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, respondent No.3 is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner, as his representation is pending before him, and to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law regarding the change of the Investigating Officer in this matter, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:25.09.2025 ASR 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.26009 of 2025 Dt.25.09.2025 Asr