Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/30437/2013 of Smt. N.Radhika Vs The Government of Andhra Pradeh, on 29 December 2023
COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 30437 OF 2013 Between: Smt. N.Radhika, W/o. T.Balakondareddy @ Kondareddy, aged
X
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENTTHE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAOWRIT PETITION NO: 30437 OF 2013
Between:
Smt. N.Radhika, W/o. T.Balakondareddy @ Kondareddy, aged about 29 years, Occ:House wife, r/o. 4/203, Mamathanagar, Kurnool presently residing at H.No. 43/2253-3-1-4, Sankal Bagh, N.R.Peta, Kurnool -4.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Inspector[General][ of][ Police]Rayalaseema Zone, Hyderabad.Rayalaseema Zone, Hyderabad.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District at Kurnool
3.Dr. T.Balakrishna Reddy, S/o. Venkata Rami Reddy, Aged Major, r/o. H.No.87-1109-P-16, Sai Vallabh Colony, Ganeshnagar 2, Kurnool.87-1109-P-16, Sai Vallabh Colony, Ganeshnagar 2, Kurnool.
4. Thimmareddy Balakondareddy @ Konda Reddy, S/o. Venkata Rami Reddy,35 years, R/o. H.No. 87-1109-P-16, Sai Vallabh Colony, Ganeshnagar-2,Kurnool.35 years, R/o. H.No. 87-1109-P-16, Sai Vallabh Colony, Ganeshnagar-2,Kurnool.
5. Thimmareddy Venkata Lakshmamma, W/o. T.Venkata Rami Reddy, agedabout 62 years, r/o. H.No. 87-1109-P-16, Sai Vallabh Colony, Ganeshnagar-2, Kurnool.about 62 years, r/o. H.No. 87-1109-P-16, Sai Vallabh Colony, Ganeshnagar-2, Kurnool.
6. Thimmareddy Venkata Rami Reddy, S/o. Late T. Bali Reddy, aged about 70years, r/o. H.No. 87-1109-P-16, Sai Vallabh Colony, Ganeshnagar-2, Kurnool.years, r/o. H.No. 87-1109-P-16, Sai Vallabh Colony, Ganeshnagar-2, Kurnool.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying thatin thecircumstances statedintheaffidavit filedtherewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, morein the nature ofMandamus, declaring the action of the 2"'^ respondent herein in transferring theCr.No. 129/2013 registered on a complaint lodged by the petitioner to anotherPolice Station at the instance of the 3''* respondent and the in action on the partof the respondents1 & 2in not giving protection from the respondents 3 to 6herein to the petitioner and her minor child, as being illegal, arbitrary andisinviolationof fundamentalright guaranteedunderArticles14and21oftheConstitution of India and consequently direct the2”'^ respondenttogive theprotectiontothepetitionertoherlifeandlimbasrequestedthroughherrepresentationdated10.06.2013fromtherespondents3to6andtheirhenchmen.
I.A. NO:1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 37787 OF 2013)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the[circumstances][ stated]inthe affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased todirect the respondents 1 & 2 to provide protection to the petitioner and her minorchild from the respondents 3 to 6 and their henchmen forthwith by consideringthefurther complaint dated10.06.2013,pendingdisposalof theabovewritpetition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J. U. M. V. PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: --
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6: SRI V. NITESH
The Court made the following: ORDER
HON'BLE DRJUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
Writ Petition No.30437 of 2013
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Both the learned counsel are present.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the causein the writ petition does not survive and it has become infructuous.
3. Recording the above submission, Writ petition is dismissed[as]
infructuous.No order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications,if any pending,[shall]
stands closed.
Sd/- U. SRIDEVIASSISTANT REGISTRARSECtiON OFFICER
//TRUE COPY//
To.
1. One CC to Sri J. U. M. V. Prasad, Advocate [OPUC]
2. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh[OUT]3. One CC to Sri V. Nitesh, Advocate [OPUC]4.Three C.D. CopiesCnrgl HIGH COURT
DATED:29/12/2023
ORDER
I2 8 MAY 202<1*9o\★
WP.No.30437 of 2013
%oAV
DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCTUOUSWITHOUT COSTS
/