The Machilipatnam Nayi Masjid (MOSQUE) v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 21, 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
Cause title
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be ...Respondents
pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in interfering with the civil dispute without any manner of right and directing the petitioner settle matter between petitioner and unofficial respondents 5 and 6 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional colorable exercise of power and voilative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfer in any manner with petitioners right in Shadhikhana being maintained by the Machilipatnam Nayi Masid(Mosque) represented by its President Abdul Salam. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfer in any manner with affairs of Shadhikhana being maintained by the Machilipatnam Nayi Masid(Mosque) represented by its President Abdul Salam. Pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the GUDISEVA^^ ispondent Nos.5 & 6: SRI NARASIMHA RAO The Court made the following order: APHC010215902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 10968/2025 Between: THE MACHILIPATNAM NAYI MASJID (MOSQUE), REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT ABDUL SALAM, S/0. ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 65 YEARS, OPP. ATCHABA, NURUDDINPET,MACHILIPATNAM,KRISHNADISTRIC BESIDE HOUSE MASID ROAD, THE OF AND ...PETITIONER
1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI, SECRETARIAT, DEPARTMENT, HOME AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT AP.
2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KRISHNA DISTRICT, AT MACHILIPATNAM.
3.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MACHILIPATNAM. 4.THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, INAGUDURU POLICE STATION, MACHILIPATNAM.
5.THE MACHILIPATNAM TOWN BISMILLA FLOWER MERCHANT ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SAYYAD DAVOOD, S/0 vS/i.YYAD GOUSE, AGED 62 YEARS, R/0 D NO. 4-483, RAJUPETA, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.,
6.THE MACHILIPATNA.M ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TAHEER SHAREEF, vS/0 DADA SHAREEF, AGED 49 YEARS, R/0 D.NO. 2-244, CHINTAGUNTAPALEM, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S)
: Counsel for the Petition ?r:
1.G RAMA KRISHNA Counse? forthe Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR HOME
2.NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA The Court made the following: i. f
ORDER:
2 This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: respondents a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in interfering with the civil dispute without any manner of right and directing the petitioner to settle the rnatter between the petitioner and unofficial of power and voilative of Article unconstitutional colorable^ exercise 21 respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere in any manner with petitioners in Shadhikhana being maintained by the Machilipatnam NayI Masld(Mosque) represented by its President Abdul Salam. ” of India and conseguently Constitution arbitrary of the illegal, direct 5 6
2. Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that, Police are not interfering in the civil dispute between the Petitioner and the unofficial Respondents.
3. For ready reference, the written instructions are extracted hereunder; “We are not interfering into the activities of the Shadikhana. infructions the Writ. ” Hence,
4. Sri G.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit. recording the same, the petition may be disposed of.
Operative part
5. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/-AVIJAYA BABU STRAR assistant SECTION OFFICER To,
The Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
The Superintendent of Police, Krishna District, At Machilipatnam.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Machilipatnam.
The Circle Inspector of Police, Inaguduru Police Station, Machilipatnam. 7. One CC to Sri. G Rama Krishna Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP For Home High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 9. One CC to Sri. Narasimha Rao Gudiseva Advocate [OPUC] 10. Two CD Copies. AL high court DATED;21/07/2025 ORDER WPNO. 10968 OF 2025 \ W' 0 3 SEP 2025 S^jurwnts^ 3^ disposing of the w.p. WITHOUT COSTS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 21, 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 21 Jul 2025. The bench was VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA.
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.