CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P v. MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of,
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 21, 24, 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In view of the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 26.09.2019, if the same is available on record. In the event the said representation has not 4 reached respondent No.2, the petitioner is at…
Judgment
Cause title
1. SHIVNARAYANA DOSS,, DISCIPLE OF MAHANT HH SRI ARJUNDOSSJI, PUJARI, SRI JABALI ANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, SRI SWAMY HATHIRAMJI MUTT, TIRUPATI - TIRUMALA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, HOME DEPT. A.P., SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent in not considering the petitioner representations to order CBCID investigation to reveal the real facts about the Sri Shyam Doss who is planted by land Mafia of Tirupati Town to disturb peace and security in the Ancient religious and Charitable Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and violation of Andhra Pradesh charitable fundamental rights guaranteed under article 14, 21, 24 of constitution of India and issue consequential directions to consider this case for necessary directions to order CBCID investigation to reveal the real facts about Sri Shyam Doss and pass and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 2 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 pleased to direct the Respondent to consider the petitioner dated 26-09-2019 representation and pass orders on said representation for direction to order CBCID investigation to reveal the true facts about Shyam Doss pending Disposal of the above writ petition and pass pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. NAGESWARA RAO V Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
3 This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the Respondent in not considering the petitioner representations to order CBCID investigation to reveal the real facts about the Sri Shyam Doss who is planted by land Mafia of Tirupati Town to disturb peace and security in the Ancient religious and Charitable Sri Swamy Hathiramji Mutt as arbitrary, illegaland violative of law.
Heard, Sri Charan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri V.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has no instructions from the petitioner.
The case pertains to the year 2020 and is one of the oldest cases pending on this roster. On a perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 26.09.2019 to one of the respondents, which, according to the petitioner, was not considered.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, if any such representation is pending consideration before the respondents, the same would be considered in accordance with law.
Operative part
In view of the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 26.09.2019, if the same is available on record. In the event the said representation has not 4 reached respondent No.2, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation on the same cause of action. Upon submission of such representation, respondent No.2 shall consider and dispose of the same within a reasonable time, in accordance with law. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. Date: 28.01.2026 KKV _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of,
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 21, 24, 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 28 Jan 2026. The bench was Y LAKSHMANA RAO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.