Telangana High Court

WP/10530/2001 of Gundrampalli Yadaiah Alias Sherva Yadaiah Vs The Principal Secretary to Government on 31 December 2008

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10530 of 2001 Between: Gundrampalli Yadaiah Alias Sherva Yadaiah S/o. Late

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 10530 of 2001

Between:

Gundrampalli Yadaiah Alias Sherva Yadaiah S/o. Late Jangaiah H.No.18/3/586, Omnagar, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The Principal Secretary to Government Home Department, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2 The Commissioner of Police,

Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to toissue a Writ of Certiorari, order or direction to the respondents and to quash theexternment orders passed in Memo.No.14355/Pol.H/S-1/2001-4 dt:18-5-2001 passedby the last 1st respondent on the basis of orders passed by the 2nd respondent inSB(1)No.11/Ext.1/S-1/2001 dt:7-4-2001 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHIVA SHANKER CHOWDARY

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME

The Court made the following :

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

W.P.No.10530 of 2001

ORDER:

Page 1 of 2

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad-second respondent passed an orderdated 7.4.2001 directing externment of the petitioner from the limits of Hyderabad cityfor a period of six months from the date of that order. It was passed in exercise of powerunder Section 26 (7) of the Hyderabad City Police Act. The second respondent allegedthat the petitioner was involved in number of cases and his presence in the city isprejudicial to the public order. Allegations were also made to the effect that thepetitioner was involved in transporting illicit liquor endangering the lives of the public.The petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The appeal wasdismissed through orders dated 18.5.2001. Hence, this writ petition.

The petitioner states that there was absolutely no basis for externment orderagainst him and that the same has the effect of deprivation of his freedom and liberty.He contends that several cases registered against him ended in acquittal and that nonotice was issued before impugned order was passed.

The second respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit. Various acts andomissions on the part of the petitioner are mentioned in detail. It is stated that thepetitioner was convicted in as many as 29 cases under A.P.Excise Act and he was alsoinvolved in the cases registered under the provisions of I.P.C. and NDPS Act etc.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned GovernmentPleader for Home.

The writ petition was admitted on 23.05.2001. No interim orders werepassed. The result is that the order of externment had worked itself out. It is only for aperiod of six months and that period had expired long back. Therefore, the necessity forthis court to deal with the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is obviated. Thewrit petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

To1.2CCs to2.2CD copiesForm-NIC-OGS/WP{JCS}

// TRUE COPY //

..... REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…