APHC010155992026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 8467/2026 Between: 1.GUNJII SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/O. SAI NAGAR, 9TH WARD, CHILAKALURIPET, PURUSHOTHAPATNAM, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522616. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI - 522503. 2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALNADU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522601. 3.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHILAKALURIPET URBAN POLICE STATION, PALNADU DISTRICT - 522616. 4.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, , CHILAKALURIPET RURAL POLICE STATION, PALNADU DISTRICT - 522616. 5.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NARASARAOPET POLICE STATION, PALNADU DISTRICT - 522601. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.JAYA PRAKASH MADASU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1.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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondent police i.e., 3 to 5 in repeatedly summoning the petitioner to the police station. subjecting him to threats and harassment, interfering in a purely civil dispute, and attempting to coerce the petitioner to settle the dispute and to execute registration of his properties in favour of third parties, as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents 3 to 5 not to summon the petitioner or interfere with him except in accordance with due process of law and pass…” 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri Jaya Prakash Madasu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned conduct of the Respondent Police, in repeatedly summoning the Petitioner to the police station, subjecting him to threats, and coercing him to settle alleged civil disputes, constitutes a manifest abuse of authority and a flagrant violation of constitutional guarantees. It is contended that the police, being creatures of statute, are bound to act strictly within the confines of law and cannot arrogate unto themselves jurisdiction over civil disputes or compel transfer of immovable property. The Petitioner, a social worker of repute and former Honorary President of the Andhra Pradesh State Chenchu Welfare Association, has been subjected to continuous harassment, intimidation, and unlawful interference in his private rights, thereby infringing his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Such arbitrary exercise of power, bereft of lawful sanction, warrants the 3 issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the Respondents from further harassment and interference. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner has no efficacious alternative remedy, as the acts complained of are not isolated but constitute a continuing course of unconstitutional conduct. The Respondents, by compelling attendance at the police station, employing abusive language, and attempting to coerce registration of property in favour of third parties, have transgressed the limits of their lawful authority. The Petitioner is under constant fear and mental agony, and unless this Court intervenes in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, irreparable injury will ensue. The relief sought is not merely declaratory but preventive, to ensure that the police desist from interfering in civil disputes and confine themselves to their lawful duties. 5. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the allegations of harassment are exaggerated and unfounded. It is contended that the police, upon receipt of complaints from aggrieved individuals, were duty-bound to call the Petitioner for enquiry, which is a legitimate exercise of their statutory functions. The Respondents deny any coercion or abuse of authority and assert that the Petitioner, having been involved in disputes with private parties, was merely advised to resolve the matter amicably. The plea that the police interfered in civil disputes or compelled transfer of property is categorically denied. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has an efficacious remedy under law to approach appropriate forums for redressal of 4 grievances, and invocation of Article 226 jurisdiction is unwarranted in the absence of substantiated proof of constitutional violations. 6. Having considered the submissions of both sides and upon perusal of the material placed before this Court, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent Police not to henceforth summon the Petitioner to the police station or interfere with him in relation to civil disputes, except in accordance with due process of law. 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: 08.04.2026 VTS