APHC010060692022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 4672/2022 Between: PATTA BHAIRAVA PRASAD,, S/O. RAMCHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS H NO. 2-8-030, SHEKLALA STREET, YANAM, PUDUCHERY 533 464 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAKINADA RURAL CIRCLE, KAKINADA RURAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE / SHO LNDRAPALEM POLICE STATION, KAKINADA RURAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5. MR P VIJAYA SHANKAR, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR PRESENTLY WORKING AS CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AT RAILWAY POLICE, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHINTAPALLI SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. BOKKA SATYANARAYANA KAMLA The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: 2 “.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the illegal action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not taking any action against the 5th respondent by not registering any crime against the 5th respondent and not initiated any departmental enquiry basing on the complaint dated 25.05.2019 of the petitioner is illegally detaining the petitioner and his minor son namely Patta Raghuram, aged 9 years into the lock up without having any valid reasons by detaining the petitioner and his son into the lock up is highly illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of Indi and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to take action against the 5th respondent immediately in the interest of justice.” 2. Sri Chintapalli Srinivas, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 may be directed to initiate departmental enquiry against Respondent No.5 based on the representation of the Petitioner. 3. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that, there is no further action required on the complaint dated 25.05.2019. 4. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Respondent No.2 is directed to look into the representation of the Petitioner dated 25.05.2019 and take appropriate steps according to governing rules and law. 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:17.11.2025 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.4672 of 2022 Dt.17.11.2025 Dinesh