Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Between T. Satyanarayana, S/o: T. Kuranna, Age about 37 Yrs, Occ: Conespondent, M.M.C.C Talent School, Rahmathguda, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER
ENT' 1 . The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary to the Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.
2. The Director General of Police, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Hyderabad. 5. Khaleed Basha, The lnspector of Police, ln the 0/o The Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Hyderabad.
6. Mohan Manoj Kumar, S/o: Not known, R/o Flat No.520/9, Manasa Sarovar Heights, Hasmatpet, Tirumalgiri, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents 4 and 5 in forcibly taking four cheques and three promissory notes and cash of an amount of Rs.2,00,0001 in the name of the respondent no.6 by threatening the petitioner with dire consequences by putting life threat in the office of the respondent no.4 is nothing but arbitrary illegal, null and void and violative Articles '14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also liable for Departmental action. Consequ€ntly, direct the respondent; no. 4 and 5 not to harass and not to interfere v,ith the personal liberties of the petitioner. l.A. NO i1OF2o1 P. NO: 18075 0F 20141 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent nos.4 and 5 not to harass and not to interfere with the liberties ol the petitioner thereby not to call him to the office of the respondent No.4 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. SA KUMAR, REPRESENTTNG SRI K. VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: SRI SRIDHAR BHUVANAG|R|, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI V. RAMCHANDER GOUD The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAI{RISHNA REDDY 14
ORDER:
Heard Mr. K.Sai Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel on record appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cause in the present Writ Petition does not sunrive for adjudication.
Operative part
3. In view of the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. L. VIJAYA ASSISTANT /ffRUE COPY// OFFICER To,
One CC to Sri K' VENUMADHAV' Advocate [OPUC] 2TwoCCstoGPforHome, HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana, at a 1t TJ HYderabad IOUTI
One CC to SRI' V' RAMCHANDER GOUD' Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies i::-- s-r4ii+,. \ i- -\ -^'.,-.. \t 7. 6 * HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 a iEl Ro( ORDER WP.No.14558 of 2014 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS (.Ag K
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
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.