Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 21823 of 2009 Between: Rathi Hanumadas @ Pintoo Rathi S/o.Radhakishan R/o.H.No.21-18/5, Vivekananda Nagar, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer, Police Station, Saroornagar, Cyberabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner of Police, L.B.Nagar, Cyberabad. 3 Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the respondent No.1 not to interfere into the above said matter as it being of Civil Nature and be pleased to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.BASWA RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 21823 of 2009 ORDER: 1 The petitioner approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the respondent No.1 not to interfere into the above said matter as it being of Civil Nature and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 2 The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the police are not interfering with the civil disputes of the petitioner. 3 In the light of the said submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, this court is of the view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of with a direction to the police not to interfere with the civil disputes of the petitioner including his personal life and liberty without following due process under law. 4 The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ------------------------------- 15.10.2009
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.