Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16740 (AP)

K GANGA JANAKI v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/3982/2026 · 2026-03-04

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010069312026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3982/2026 Between: 1. K GANGA JANAKI, D/O LATE K. SUBBA RAO, W/O O. KRANTHI ROYAL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCC BUSINESS, R/AT 770 BALAJI NAGAR, TIRUMALA, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI-522237. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517501. 3. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517501. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, II TOWN POLICE STATION , TIRUMALA, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517504. 5. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, II TOWN POLICE STATION , TIRUMALA, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517504. 6. THE CHIEF VIGILANCE AND SECURITY OFFICER, TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517501. 7. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER ESTATE OFFICER, PANCHAYAT AND REVENUE, TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS, TIRUMALA, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517504. 8. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PANCHAYAT AND 2 REVENUE TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS, TIRUMALA, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517504. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRAVAN KUMAR MANNAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. AMRUTHA BOPPUDI The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents No. 4 and 5 in interfering with petitioners personal liberty, possession and enjoyment of her stall stating not to open and commence business in Stall No. 20 in between 1st and 2nd New Choultry, Tirumala, Tirupati District without any legal cause is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents No. 4 and 5 to forbear from interfering with life and personal liberty of petitioner, not to interfere with the petitioners personal liberty, possession and enjoyment of her Stall No. 20 in between 1st and 2nd New Choultry, Tirumala, Tirupati District …” 2. Heard Mr. Mannava Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri P.Ajay Babu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader and Ms. Amrutha Boppudi, learned Senior counsel for Respondent Nos.6 to 8. 3. Mr. Mannava Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that police have been interfering in the affairs of the Petitioner and third party. 4. Ms. Amrutha Boppudi, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 6 to 8, submits that originally one Pattamma was the license holder for the disputed shop. Later, the shop is still in the name of Pattamma. No transfer of the licence of the shop to the Petitioner or to his father has taken place. 3 5. Be that as it may, this Court would not go into the issue of granting license, transfer of license, or cancellation of the license with regard to the shop. Now the shop is in the TTD premises. 6. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the police have been interfering in the Petitioner’s personal liberty and not allowing him to open and commence the business in Stall. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader and also the standing counsel for the TTD, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondent Police henceforth not to interfere in the Petitioner’s personal liberty. However, it is open to the police authorities to interfere with the alleged activities of the Petitioner if there is an issue of law and order or commission of any alleged cognizable offence in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 05.03.2026 PRA 4 40 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3982 of 2026 Date: 05.03.2026 PRA