KUNJA SANTHAMMA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, by its Pr. Secretary, Home
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 22 Nov 2025
- Bench
- VJP
Outcome
Disposed of
Recording the above submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19, 21, 226
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Recording the above submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Tahsildar is the competent authority to take necessary steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand…
Judgment
Cause title
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased direct the respondent police to register the complaint given by the petitioner on 17/07/2023 and take action in accordance with law. pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: P R K AMERANDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION NO: 22323 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:
…pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus challenging the action of the official respondents in not taking action on petitioner's complaint dated 19.06.2023 to register the crime against the respondents 4 to 19 who are illegally obstructing the transportation of essential commodities being transported by the petitioner, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, without jurisdiction, contrary to law and in violation of the Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the official respondents to take action on petitioner complaint dated 19.06.2023 against respondents 4 to 19 and pass.…
Heard Sri P R K Amerandra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents
When the matter was taken up for hearing, Sri V. Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that there is a dispute between two tribes with regard to the land. As the Tahsildar was not available at that time, the parties contacted the police through Dial 100. The police visited the spot and ascertained the issue. It is further submitted that no complaint has been received from any party and since it is an agency area, no complaint was given.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court may pass appropriate orders.
Operative part
Recording the above submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Tahsildar is the competent authority to take necessary steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Date: 22-11-2025 KKV _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 116 W.P.No.22323 of 2023 Dated.22-11-2025 KKV HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI MAIN CASE NO.: W.P.No.22323 of 2023 Date Sl. No. PROCEEDING SHEET ORDER OFFICE NOTE 1
22.11.2025 Dr.VJP,J The Writ Petition is disposed of. (Vide separate order) KKV ________ Dr.VJP, J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Recording the above submissions, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19, 21, 226; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 22 Nov 2025. The bench was VJP.
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.