Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 25048 (AP)

PARA LINGA RAO v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/32444/2022 · 2026-03-09

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010532072022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 32444/2022 Between: 1. PARA LINGA RAO, S/O. KISTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 3-201, CANAL ROAD, VELPURU VILLAGE, SAVALYAPURAM MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, A.P. POLICE HEADQUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 3. THE ADDL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (C.I.D.), A.P. POLICE HEADQUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, COLLECTOR OFFICE ROAD, NAGARAMPALEM, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, , DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P. 6. THE COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT BUREAU, GNR TOWERS, CURRENCY NAGAR, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, A.P. 7. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE ENFORCEMENT SUPERINTENDENT, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P. 8. S KONDA REDDY, THE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTOR, SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT BUREAU, PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P. 9. K MURALI, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, POLICE CONSTABLE, SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT BUREAU, PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P. 10. P S N REDDY, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER (V.R.O.), PIDUGURALLA, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P. 11. L SAGAR BABU, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, VILLAGE REVENUE ASSISTANT (V.R.A.), KONANKI VILLAGE, PIDUGURALLA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT, 2 A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the Official Respondent authorities to furnish CCTV video footage recorded on 05.08.2022 from Kaza Toll Gate, Pedakakani, Guntur City, Nallapadu, Perecherla Cross Roads, Medikonduru, Sattenapalli, Rajupalem, Bellamkonda Cross Roads, Kondamodu Junction, Piduguralla to Special Enforcement Bureau, Piduguralla, Palnadu District commencing from 4.00 AM to 9.00 AM and the mobile phones tower locations and the call data of the Respondent No. 8 Mobile Number 94409 02486, 93463 57880, Respondent No. 9 Mobile Number 90001 11020, Respondent No. 10 Mobile Number 88018 68086 and Respondent No. 11 Mobile Number 63046 26273 in pursuance of the application of the Petitioner dated 29.08.2022 and further direct the Official Respondent authorities to investigate into the matter to find out the truth therein and to take necessary action against the erring officials and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim order directing the Official Respondent authorities to preserve the CCTV video footage of 05.08.2022 from Kozo Toll Gate to Special Enforcement Bureau, Piduguralla, Palnadu District commencing from 4.00 AM to 9.00 AM and the mobile phones tower locations and the call data of the Respondents No. 8 - 11 and handover the same before this Hon'ble High Court, until disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE 3. SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CID The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.32444 of 2022 ORDER: Despite the writ petition being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, it indicates that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 10.03.2026 KBN 4 56 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 32444 of 2022 Date: 10.03.2026 KBN