Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2836 (AP)

Bandaru Venganna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/15313/2026 · 2026-06-10

A Hari Haranadha Sarma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010290712026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 15313/2026 Between: 1. BANDARU VENGANNA, S/O LATE VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, EX.SARPANCH, R/O KOMMURU VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 235 2. SIDDABATTUNI BALA VENKATA SAL KIRAN, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO.10-11, KUMMURU VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL, GUNTUR DIST - 522 235 3. KOMMURI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, S/O NAYA BRRHMACHARI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, CARPENTER, R/O KOMMURU VILLAGE, KAKUMANU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 235. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIET BUILDING, AMARAVATI.522238 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522238 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR, DISTRICT.522238 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PRATHIPADU POLICE 2 STATION, PRATHIPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522238 5. MUTTAVARAPU SUBBARAO, S/O RATHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O PEDDIVARIPALEM, KAKUMANU (M), GUNTUR DIST. 522238 6. CHERUKURI SAMBASIVARAO, S/O RAMAKOTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YRS, R/O KOMMURU VILLAGE, KAKUMANU (M), GUNTUR DIST - 522 235 ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in interfering with the civil dispute whereby threatening the petitioners to settle the money transaction between the 1st Petitioner son-in- law and unofficial respondents 5 and 6 is illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India. Consequently, direct the 4th Respondent not to interfere with the civil dispute including calling the petitioners to the 4th Respondent police station and threatening to settle the dispute and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to direct the 4th Respondent not to interfere with the civil dispute including calling the petitioners to the police station and threatening to settle the dispute pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 15313/2026 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking Writ of Mandamus alleging that the respondents 2 to 4 are interfering with the personal liberty of the petitioners in respect of a civil dispute and asking the petitioners to settle the money transactions between the son-in-law of the 1st petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent-police. 3. On written instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that 51 agricultural farmers submitted a representation in Public Grievance Redressal System alleging that the petitioners herein have taken various amounts and the agricultural produce harvested in different quantities by assuring repayment etc., and that the said aspect is under enquiry as to whether there was any cheating etc. Further, in the written instructions, it is submitted that except for preliminary enquiry, no coercive action, threat, harassment or interference is made by the respondent-police. 4. In view of the written instructions, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere if the dispute is civil in nature. However, this order will not come in the way if any offence is made out. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Date: 11.06.2026 ARR 5 15 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 15313/2026 Date: 11.06.2026 ARR