APHC010079452026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 4735/2026 Between: TRIPURAMALLU VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O RANNA SUBBA RAO, AGE 61 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O FLAT NO.411, SRI SAI HOMES, GUNTAGARLAPADU, VISSAPALEM VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP.- BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 522238 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 522203 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALNADU DISTRICT, NARASAROPET. 522601 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NARASARAOPET RURAL POLICE STATION, PALNADU DISTRICT. 522601 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.4735 of 2026 Dated 27.02.2026 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 Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not consider the representations dated 15 01 2026 and 19 01 2026 and failed to providing police protection to the petitioner and his family members is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent Nos 2 to 4 to provide police protection to the petitioner and his family members and pass….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri V.V. Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the representations dated 15.01.2026 and 19.01.2026 submitted to the respondents were not properly disposed of in the correct perspective. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the said representations were considered and bind- over proceedings were initiated against T. Venkataswara Rao, directing him not to threaten the petitioner. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has also lodged a representation against the father of T. Venkataswara Rao, namely Segu Ramesh Babu and Segu Sudhakar. 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.4735 of 2026 Dated 27.02.2026 6. In that view of the matter, Respondent No.4 is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner against the father of T. Venkataswara Rao, namely Segu Ramesh Babu and Segu Sudhakar and their associates, in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 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: 27.02.2026 RSI 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.4735 of 2026 Dated 27.02.2026 180 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 4735 of 2026 Date: 27.02.2026 RSI