The High Court · 2025

High Court passed in l.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No. 30546 of 2024' tor time being upport of the of certified co C praying that in the circumstances stated in petition, the High Court maY be pleased to pv of Order dt. 05-03-2025 of the Honourable ,..PG., -r-: IA NO: 20 F 2025 .fi ,n",r,,!5ljli?[:i:"J;::,f:.1s1 cpc praying that in the circun,stances stated in lhe2p;;;;;;;;,;J,,,:1.,",J{E{{.{1"#[:ilfl :,.::,*T;:[:*:,,"i:i."ll,"l,lT Ac.2.o1 guntas situatert in Sy No.2Oln ? 'iirrr.irtapalti Viltage, Dammapeta Mandat, Bhadradri Kothaq.udem'Di.i.[i pirJrrniii"tr," oro",. dated 05_03_202s in lLll;J ;l ffi p,y;,;ii; il# I "", "i ;;;i" it.,;" Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. T VASANTHA RAO Counset for the Respondent Nos.1&2: SRI MAHESH RAJE Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent NO.3: SRI S.V RAMANA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT b;; ;il::", ov in " i'r l I I i 1 ! I I i I I l i : TI{E HON',BLE THE ACTTNG:If" JusTIcE SUJOY PAUL TIIE HON,BLE SVTI' TU-SIICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No. 347 of2 02 5 JUDG @er the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul): T Sri T. Vasantha Rao' learned counsel for the appellants; Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home for resPondent Nos' 1 and 2 and Sri S'V' Ramana' Sri Department, learned counsel for respondent No'3 2 This interlocutory Intra-Court appeal takes order dated 05'03 2025 in exception to arl I.A.No 1 of 2025 rn W.P.No.30546of2024,relevantportionofwhichreadsthus: "..'In the above circumstances' this Court hnds order dated the -interim 2025 filed ror i-c'No' t .or, order dated 30'10'2024 is no reasons ;;"til; so.to.2024' ;"#;;;''' ;;"i;'J; extension "f dismissed. In view of the orders passed in I'A No'1 of 2025 ' no further orders are required to be passed tn I.A.No.2 of 2024, accordingly, the application is closed. Further, the Sub-lnspector of Police, Dammapeta Police Station, is directed to give Police protection to the vacate petitioner-respondent No.3, in compliance of the order dated 19.O9.2022 passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.1827 of 2022." 2

3. Lear-ned counsel for the appellants submil s that before the urit Corrr-t, the contentions raised by the present appellants have not beerl 66nsi6"red in the writ petition filed by the present appellants. Relief has been granted to the unollicial respondent No.3. By placing reliance on the Rules 29 and 3l of Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules 1924, it is submitted that a statutory procedure is prescribed for taking action for the purpose of Police protection etc.,. Those provisions have not b(,en futfilted. He informecl that before the writ Court, the notice dated 28.10.2024 (page No.43) was subject matter of challenge. The operative portion of the said notice reads thus: .) Hon'ble High Courr had granted prtice r.uzz ^-^,^:1i. protc,.,ron. vide orders in C.R.p.No.i si'if dated I 9.09.2022. Hence, you are clirectecl to hand 'Oir""".f,"f, _he possession within 2 a"y" t" -over Venka ta Laxminarasamma, failing o,nict . trr. furthe r action will be taken.,,

4. During the course of hearing, learned counst)l for the parties fairly srrbmitted that earlier, the unofficial respondent No.3 filed C.R.P.No.1827 of 2022 which was cie,:ided on 19.O9.2022 by z, learned Single Judge of this Court anrl the said order attained f.nality. Relevant portion of the said orrier reads thus: 3 "r7- In the result' lH":;"jL$;:;?:r.Tj!!:"i; alrowed sertins-aside :l: :'il;;i';; 20t4 ino.s.No'385 in I.A.No.181 of 2ol6'l,l.iti"J"rvrrgisrrate and Special of 2ol4 by the Sub-Ll:ut ^----, rvlobile uoun at Assistant Asent -,to -Y^T::"";;;; orficer, Dammapet Bhadrachalam tn"^::1";"','"-M;;;, Bhadradri police Station, YT:""5;'..tej to provide. potice Kothagudem Pi",ill;,^1"_,;H;'il ai"pi"rr or the suit orotecLion to the Petluont b.s.tto.sss of 2o14' Pending miscellaneous petitions' if any' shall stand closed'" , t The order passed in a-foresaid C'R'P was unsuccessfully 5. challenged by the present appellants before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No'17262 ol 2022 which was decitled on 3O'O9'2022' The Supreme Court granted liberty to the parties to apprise the higher Police authorities' if the Police are using the order contrary to law' However' the writ appellants chose to file the Since the order writ petition against the aforesaid notice ' passed in C'R'P' was not interfered with by the Supreme Court and it was not pointed out to us that petitioner preferred representation to the higher Police authorities about the illegality committed by the police officials despite liberty being granted by wa,rranted. Even the SuPreme Court' no interference otherwise, the order impugned is al interlocutory order and the main matter is sti1l pending' If at all' the appellants the said interiocutory order' they may aggrieved bY appropriate application before the learned Single Judge seeking 1S l : t i i I I 4 modilication / correction of said order. We find interfere r,vith this Writ Appeal. r.ro reason to 6 Accor,1ingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of, No costs Inter'locutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed \ To, //TRUE COPYII SD/.T.KRISHNA JorNrEW K{JMAR fSTRAR SECTION OFFlCER "#",:d:l'#01.?B?,f !1##i:Ui:ts:,:iJlBi,.,i,1iEi3[3!'ui,cJings 2. The Sub-lnspector of p( Police Station, Da m m apeta, Bhad rad ri Kothaguoem B-ce''Dammapeta

3. One CC to SRt I VASANTHA RAO Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CCs to Gp FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Tetangana. [OUT] t RAMANA, Hish court for the state of reta,rsana at lffi":""r:l: r3[ii " . Two CD Copies Y* 6 KKS LS i I l l J l I I HIGH COURT DATED:24103t202s JUDGMENT WA.No.347 of 2025 ( q J c o E STAIe 1tl o^ 2 5 APfi 2[25 i O55 pnr C.$ P t .\ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (* t ),-) rc \h\-)