APHC010181202026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9856/2026 Between: 1. PATIBANDLA SUNEETHA,, W/O KIRAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, RIO D NO 45-1-101/32, VIJETHA STREET, NEAR INDURTHI NAGAR, KP ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AP ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522237 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AT ONGOLE, AP523001 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ONGOLE I TOWN POLICE STATION, ONGOLE PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P.523001 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ONGOLE I TOWN POLICE STATION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH523001 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 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 3 and 4 in interfering with petitioner's personal liberty, summoning him to the police station, threatening him to settle the civil disputes is highly illegal, arbitrary exercise of power, unjust, violative of principles of Natural Justice and violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 not to interfere with petitioner's life and liberty…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for Petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Mr. Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are interfering with the Petitioner’s personal liberty by summoning him to the police station and coercing him to settle civil disputes. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have neither received any complaint nor initiated any enquiry regarding the subject property; the Petitioner was never summoned to Police Station; and the allegations of threats or coercion are baseless. 3 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondent Police not to interfere henceforth in the civil dispute between the Petitioner and the third parties. 6. Accordingly, 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: 04.05.2026 PRA 4 182 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9856 of 2026 Date: 04.05.2026 PRA