Koppula Satyanarayana, S/O. Narayana, Aged 41 Years, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.6941 of 2015 BETWEEN Koppula Satyanarayana ... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Home), Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.

...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Heard.

2. Petitioner alleges that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are repeatedly visiting petitioner's house and insisting him to handover documents viz., Aadhar card, Ration card, photographs, which affects his personal liberty and civil rights.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Home has received instructions from the SubDivisional Police Officer, Jangareddygudem, which states that petitioner is already accused in crime Nos.49 of 2005, 100 of 2014 and 15 of 2015. While the first two crimes were already investigated and pending trial, the third crime i.e., crime No.15 of 2015 is under investigation. It is also stated that keeping in view the habitual conduct of the petitioner, rowdy sheet was opened against him on 28.10.2014 and as per the police standing order No.597, the respondent police called the petitioner to submit his photographs and details, which the petitioner is bound to furnish as per the standing orders. Hence, the allegations made in the writ petition are denied.

4. Obviously, petitioner has not given details of crimes registered against him and the rowdy sheet opened against him. As police standing order No.597 requires the police to obtain the details of the petitioner, they appeared to have instructed the petitioner to submit photographs and documents. Petitioner is at liberty to approach respondent Nos.4 and 5 and submit his details and photographs in terms of the said police standing order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the opening of rowdy sheet against him is already questioned in a separate writ petition viz., W.P.No.1309 of 2015.

6. That issue, therefore, is a separate issue, which would be appropriately adjudicated in the writ petition said to have been pending.

Hence, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach

respondent Nos.4 and 5 and submit the documents and photographs as per the police standing orders. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 31, 2015 LMV