Smt.Renukuntla Sarojana v. Superintendent of Police, Warangal & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA WRIT PETITION NO : 18630 of 2009 TAMADA Between: Smt. Renukuntla Sarojana, . .Petitioner And Superintendent of Police, Warangal and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.18630 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not providing protection to the petitioner and her men who are attending on sanitary works in the Gram Panchayat and in not taking any action against the respondents 5 to 13 who have been continuously threatening the petitioner and her men while executing contract work is highly arbitrary, bad and illegal. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she was given the contract works i.e., attending sanitary works for Bhoopalpally gram Panchayat, 4th respondent, and as respondent Nos.5 to 13 are continuously threatening the petitioner and her men while executing the said contract works, she approached the police and gave representations dated 09.08.2009 and 26.08.2009. But, however, necessary protection has not been provided for and hence, she approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the State House Officer, Bhupalpally Police Station did not receive any such complaint and they are in fact prepared to provide the required protection, provided they attend to the work and give a representation. In the light of the said instructions, the petitioner is hereby directed to approach the police concerned and give a representation afresh and on receipt of such representation, the Station House Officer, Bhupalpally Police Station shall, if need be, provide the required protection. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. October 05, 2009 KSH ________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.