APHC010065672026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3782/2026 Between: 1.CHILLA KRISHNAIAH, S/O LATE CHILLA CHANDRAYUDU AGED ABOUT 55YRS, OCC. ARCHAKATWAM R/O CHANDRAYUNIPALLI VILLAGE BUKKAPATNAM MANDAL SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT - 515144 2.CHILLA MADAPPA, S/O MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 69YRS, OCC. ARCHAKATWAM R/O CHANDRAYUNIPALLI VILLAGE BUKKAPATNAM MANDAL SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT - 515144 3.CHILLA KETAPPA, S/O CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 65YRS, OCC. ARCHAKATWAM R/O CHANDRAYUNIPALLI VILLAGE BUKKAPATNAM MANDAL -515144 SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BUKKAPATNAM POLICE STATION SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT - 515144 2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT -515001 3.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR. 4.THANGGEM ANAJANEYULU, S/O GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 56YRS, R/O KOTHAKOTA VILLAGE, BUKKAPATNAM MANDAL SAI SATYA SAL DISTRICT - 515144 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “… to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No 1 in issuing the Impugned Notice dt 19122025 under Sec 1303 BNSS directing the petitioners not to go to Sri Chennaraya Swamy Temple Chandrayunipalle village Bukkapatnam mandal Sri Satya Sai District as arbitrary illegal beyond jurisdiction and contrary to Sec 1303 of BNSS consequently set aside the Impugned Notice dt 19122025 under Sec 1303 BNSS issued by the 1st respondent in the interest of justice…” 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned Counsel Petitioners, contends that Respondent No.1 has issued the impugned notice without any statutory authority, though such notice, if at all warranted, ought to have been issued by the Mandal Executive Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 130(3) of ‘the BNSS.’ 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the notice was issued in view of the prevailing law- and-order issues concerning the performance of archakatvam in the disputed temple, with a view to preventing any untoward incident in the village. 3 5. Be that as it may, Section 130(3) of ‘the BNSS’ does not vest Respondent No.1 with the authority to issue such a notice. The power is exclusively conferred upon the Mandal Executive Magistrate, who alone is competent to pass necessary orders under the said provision. 6. It is further submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the Sub- Inspector of Police, by inadvertence, cited Section 130(3) of ‘the BNSS’ instead of Section 168 of ‘the BNSS’ while issuing the notice. 7. In any event, as Respondent No.1 lacks jurisdiction to issue a notice dated 19.12.2025 under Section 130(3) of ‘the BNSS’, the said notice is liable to be set aside on the ground of lack of authority. 8. Accordingly, and in view of the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the notice dated 19.12.2025 issued by Respondent No.1 purportedly under Section 130(3) of ‘the BNSS’ is hereby set aside. 9. However, liberty is given to Respondent No.1, in his capacity as a police officer, to place the relevant law-and-order situation before the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate so that appropriate preventive measures may be taken to avoid any untoward incident in the village. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.02.2026 VTS