APHC010175502026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9552/2026 Between: 1. REDDYVARI NAGARAJA REDDY, S/O. LATE SIDDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O KOLATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MADDALAKUNTA VILLAGE, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT AT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522238 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517001 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAMANER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517408 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517408 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517408 6. THE TAHSILDAR, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517408 7. P MUNI REDDY, S/O. RAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O KOLATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, 2 MADDALAKUNTA VILLAGE, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517408 8. HARI KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. RAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O KOLATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MADDALAKUNTA VILLAGE, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517408 9. R DAMODARREDDY, S/O. RAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O KOLATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MADDALAKUNTA VILLAGE, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517408 10. BALAJI REDDY, S/O. RAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O KOIATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MADDALAKUNTA VILLAGE, PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.517408 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S PARINEETA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents No.4 and 5 in taking action against the respondents No. 7 to 10 from obstructing the usage of pathway located in an extant of Ac,0.97 Cents in Sy.No.147/1, of Koiathur Grama Panchayath, Maddalakunta Village, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District, to reach to our fields in pursuance of the endorsement Roc.No/12/2025, dated 16-06-2025 given by the respondent No.6, as arbitrary, illegal, abdication of the statutory duty cast on them, apart from being Voilative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.2 to 5 to take action against the respondents No.7 to 10 from obstructing the usage of pathway located in an extant of Ac.0,97 Cents in Sy.No.147/1, of Koiathur Grama Panchayath, Maddalakunta Village, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District, from the respondents No.7 to 10, and pass…” 3 2. Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Ms. S. Parineeta, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not taken any action against respondent Nos.7 to 10 when they obstructed pathway of the petitioner. There was an endorsement given by the Tahsildar dated 16.06.2025 replying the Station House Officer, Peddapanjani Police Station regarding pathway issue. 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that on the similar complaint lodged by the petitioner on two occasions, police have conducted investigation and filed charge sheet, the same were numbered as C.C.No.648 of 2021 and C.C.No.103 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponganur. The petitioner has been repeatedly submitting complaints for the very same cause of action instead of approaching the competent Civil Court for necessary action. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any civil suit against Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 seeking any injunction restraining them from interfering with the pathway. 6. Be that as it may, when the petitioner requested Respondent No. 6, the Tahsildar, to protect the public pathway, Respondent No. 6, being the Mandal Executive Magistrate, is required to take a decision on the representation. The respondent No. 6 has directed Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to take appropriate action against the persons concerned who are causing obstruction to vehicles, 4 pedestrians, and traffic. In view of the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar/Respondent No. 6 dated 16.06.2025 vide R.O.C. No. 12/2025 CTR20250616433, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are duty bound to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to take appropriate action in accordance with law based on the endorsement given by the respondent No.6 against respondent Nos.7 to 10 within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of this Order. 8. In the result, 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: 15.04.2026 SSA 5 149 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9552 of 2026 Date: 15.04.2026 SSA