Pappula Ramesh Reddy v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-16. Pappula Ramesh Reddy v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3183 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 35325 OF 2024 Between: Pappula Ramesh Reddy, S/o P. Ramchandra Reddy, Age 55 years, Occ Business, Fyo 8-7-133/'l'1 , Sri Vinayaka venue, Gowri nagar, old bowenpally, Secunderabad' Hyderabad' ... pETrroNER AND '1 . The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, TS Secretariate, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Commissionerate at Hyderabad 3. The Station House Officer, North Zone Task Force, Secunderabad, Hyderabad Com m issio ne rate. 4. Srinivas Reddy, S/o not known Age 35 years, Occ business. No 12-7- 4512611A, plot no 52, Shakthi nagar, Bharath nagar, Opp Care Hospital, jagadgirigutta, Hyderabad, Telangana. 5. Venu gopal reddy, Sio not known Age 45 years, Occ business.
Beside Wesley church Sankalp Classic, No 12-7-45126/1A, plot no 52, Shakthi nagar, Bharath nagar, Opp Care Hospital, jagadgirigutta, Hyderabad, Telangana ... 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 a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the Respondent No. 3 in interfering with the personal life and liberty of Petitioner ln respect of business transaction for rnoney between the Respondent no. 4 and the petitioner, petitioner and the respondent no. 4 both are the business partners and the respondent no. 5 who is the brother in law of the respondent no. 4 influencing the respondent no. 3 to interfere in a money dispute which is purely in civil nature, on the influence of the Respondent 4 and 5 to settle the civil dispute pressurizing the petitioner to pay the cheque amount to the respondent no.
4, which is illegal and contrary to law and infringement of Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners as guaranteed under Article 19, 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent No. 3 in interfering with the personal life and liberty of Petitioner ln respect of business transaction for money between the Respondent no. 4 and the petitioner, petitioner and the respondent no. 4 both are the business partners and the respondent no. 5 who is the brother in law of the respondent no. 4 influencing the respondent no. 3 to interfere in a money dispute which is purely in civil nature, on the influence of the Respondent 4 & 5 to settle the civil dispute pressurizing the petitioner to pay the cheque amount to the respondent no.
4, on the influence of the Respondent 4 & 5 to settle the civil disputes pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s PAGILLA JAYANTHI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 TO 3: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 4 & 5: - The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRITPETITIO NNo. 353XtOF m24 ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is fired by the petitioner seeking to decrare the action of respondent No. 3 - the Station House Officer, North Zone Task Forcg secunderabad, in interfering with his personar life and liberty and interfering the civil/financial dispubes between the petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5 without following due process of law, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 2. Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Govemrnent pleader for Home, basing on the written instructions d,ated 76. 12. 2024 submifted that respondent No.
3 verified the station records and it was revealed as on today, no complaint was received either from the petitioner or respondenB No. 4 and 5. The allegations made by the petitioner that respondent No. 3 surrrmoned harassed, threatened and interfered with his personal life and liberty and interfered in the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5 are denied. It is further submitted ttrat respondent No. 3 has not taken any coercive steps against the petitioner as alleged in the writ affidavit. n 3 Recording the aforesaid submissiory the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. SD/. P. PADMANABHA BE DDY ASSTSTANT REG16 TRAR //TRUE COPY// \/ . Y SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Principal Secretary to Home Department, TS Secretariate, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad Commissionerate at Hyderabad.
2 The Station House Officer, North Zone Task Force, Secunderabad, Hyderabad Commissionerate. 4 One CC to M/s PAGILLA JAYANTHI, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 6 Two CD Copies PSK. GJP cHtt- HIGH COURT DATED:1611212024 :,1 ,. \ I ORDER oR C ( WP. No. 35325 ot 2024 I 3 2zFEB 2[25 * D Ssp,4r'au{"c. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ULE V,{ rilL
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.