Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3949 (AP)

GANGISETTI ABINAY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/27212/2021 · 2026-06-29

Tuhin Kumar Gedela

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 30.06.2026 Date of uploading : 03.07.2026 APHC010449902021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] TUESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 27212/2021 Between: 1. GANGISETTI ABINAY, AGE.32YRS, S/O. LATE G. RAMANAIAH, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.DOOR.NO.18/325, GOURAMMA KATTA VEEDHI, PRODDATUR TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT-516360. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, AT KADAPA, Y.S.R.KADAPA.. 3. SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, PRODDATUR SUB DIVISION, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT-516360. 4. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALUKA POLICE STATION, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT-516360. 5. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, II TOWN POLICE STATION, PRODDATUR TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT-516360. 6. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, III TOWN POLICE STATION, PRODDATUR TOWN, KADAPA DISTRICT-516360. 7. G NAGA LAKSHMI, AGE . 57 W/O. LATE GANGISETTY RAMANAIAH, FLAT NO. 303, C.S. REDDY APARTMENT, CO- OPERATIVE COLONY, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT. 8. SMT GANGISETTY SRIDEVI, AGE.38, W/O. VADLAKUNTA RAJESH KUMAR, HOUSE WIFE, FLAT NO. 303, C.S. REDDY APARTMENT, CO-OPERATIVE COLONY, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT. 9. VADLAKUNTA RAJESH KUMAR, AGE. 40 S/O.V. RACHAIAH, OCC. BUSINESS FLAT NO. 303, C.S. REDDY APARTMENT, CO- OPERATIVE COLONY, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT. 10. TABJULU BHARGAVI, AGE. 37. W/O.TABJULU SRINIVASA KUMAR, HOUSE WIFE, FLAT NO.101, SREENIVASA RESIDENCY OPP.SANGAMITHRA HIGH SCHOOLS NIZAMPET ROAD, KUKATPALLI AREA, HYDERABAD. 11. TABJULU SRINIVASA KUMAR, AGE.42 S/0. LATE RAMA KRISHNA, OCC. BUSINESS, FLAT NO.101, SREENIVASA RESIDENCY OPP.SANGAMITHRA HIGH SCHOOLS NIZAMPET ROAD, 2 KUKATPALLI AREA, HYDERABAD. 12. GANGISETTI NAGARAJU, AGE. 45 S/0. LATE G. CHINNA VENKATA SUBBAIAH, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. D-N0. 18/324 GOWRAMMA KATTA SHEET, NEAR KOVVURU GARAGE, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT. 13. GANGISETTI SREE VANI, HOUSE WIFE, W/0. GANGISETTU NAGARAJU, AGE. 45 R/O. D-NO. 18/324 GOWRAMMA KATTA SHEET, NEAR KOVVURU GARAGE, PRODDATUR, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents, particularly respondents 3 to 6 in repeatedly insisting me to appear before their authority and threatening to arrest me, if I do not yield to the terms of Respondents 7 to 13, under the guise of implication of main false case, as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with my personal life, liberty and properties and to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 respondents particularly Respondents 3 to 6 not to pay domiciliary visits to my house and shop nor insist me to appear before their authority for settlement of claims of respondents 7 to 13 under the guise of implication of me in false case, pending disposal of main Writ Petition pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAGESWARA RAO V Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Mr.S.Charan Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.V.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that due to efflux of time, the prayer in the Writ Petition has become infructuous. 2. Considering the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date : 30-06-2026 BMS Whether the order is: Speaking ☑ Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable ☑