WP/16761/2026 of Gudimalla Pundarikam Vs The State of Telangana on 29 May 2026

[ 348s ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE TWENry NINTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

iLIfrlII

TION NO: {6761 oF 2026

Between:

Gudimalla Pundarikam, Son of Chandraiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ.

Business, resident of H.No.2-9011, Main Road, Madikonda, Kazipet, Hanamkonda District.

PETITIONER

EIIT'

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

3. The Commissioner of Police, Hanamkonda, Hanamkonda District.

4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kazipet Division, Hanamkonda District.

5. The Station House Officer, Madikonda P.S. Kazipet, Hanamkonda District.

6. Kankipati Nageswari, Wife of Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Aged about 63 years, Resident of H.No. 1 1 -23-2 1 65, L.B.Nagar, Warangal.

7. Koyyada Mahender, Son of Buchaiah, Occ. Business, H.No.1-25, SC Colony, Peechara Village, Velair Mandal, Hanamkonda District.

8. Raavi Ramu, Son of Raavi Durga Prasad, Aged about 52 years, Occ.

Business, H.No.2-7-12111, Waddepalli, Hanamkonda, Hanamkonda District.

Tl:Fl:trNlll:NfF

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, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents, especially the respondents 4 and 5

in interfering in civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondents 6 to 8 and TN

carring the petitioner frequenfly to the porice station on 15.05.2026, as iilegar, arbitrary and viorative of principres of naturar justice and against Articres 14, 1g and 21 of the constitution of India and consequenfly direct the respondents 4 and 5 not to interfere with civil disputes by calling the petitioner to porice station in the interest of justice.

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 preased to direct the respondents 4 and 5 not to cafl the petitioner to the porice station and consequenfly not to interfere in civir disputes between the petitioner and other respondents i.e., respondents 6 to 8, pending disposal of the Writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI Y.SREE RAGHAVA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to5: Gp FOR HOME

Nos.6 to 8: - - -

Counsel for the Respondent

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

WRIT PETITION No.1 676L of 2o.26

DATEz 29.0,5.2026

Between:

Gudimalla Pundarikam

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Represented by its Principal Secretary,

Home Department,

Secretariat Buildings,

Hyderabad & others

...Respondents

9RDER:

This writ Petition is filed under Article 226 0f the constitution of India, seeking the following relief:- "... to issue a Ll/rit, order or clireclion, more particularly one in the nature o/'writ of Manclantu.s, clecluring lhe action of respondenls.

especiully the respontlents I und 5 in interJbring in civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondents 6 to 8 and calling the petitioner frequently to the police station on 15.05.2026, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and against Articles 14, lg and 2I of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents I and 5 not lo interfere with civil di.sputes by calling the petitioner to polic'c:;talion in the interesl of ir.tslice and pa.ss such olher ttrder or order's..' "

2.

Heard Mr. Y. sree Raghava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government pleader for Home, for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. Perused the record.

3.

The grievance of the petitioner is that, without there being any cognizable offence committed by the petitioner, the respondents-police authorities are repeatedly calling the petitioner to the police station in connection with disputes, which are purely civil in nature.

4.

on the other hand, learned Government pleader for Home would submit that a complaint has been received from respondent No.7 and, for the purpose of conducting enquiry, the police authorities have informed the petitioner to appear before the police station.

5. In that view of the matter, the respondents-police authorities are at liberty to proceed with the enquiry in respect of the complaint made by respondent No.7, by following the due procedure established under law. However, in the absence of any cognizable offence being made out against the petitioner, the respondent police shall not unnecessarily call the petitioner J

to the police station or interfere in the civil disputes between the parties'

6.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.

SD'-T. SRINIVASA REDDY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,/TRUE COPY//

C

To,

PMK

BS

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal secretary, Home Department, secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad'

3. The Commissioner of Police, Hanamkonda, Hanamkonda District'

4. The Assistant commissioner of Police, Kazipet Division, Hanamkonda District.

5. The station House Officer, Madikonda P.S. Kazipet, Hanamkonda District.

6. One CC to SRI Y.SREE RAGHAVA RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

7. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies

l

,|

I

{

HIGH COURT

DATED: 29105t2026