← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/543/2015dismissed

G.Mohammed Thakai v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

2015-02-18Vilas V.Afzulpurkar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.543 of 2015 BETWEEN G.Mohammed Thakai ... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Home), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Heard.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.3 is interfering with the day to day activities of the petitioner; pressuring him to remain in the police station from morning to evening; and causing serious harassment.

3. Instructions of the learned Government Pleader, however, show that petitioner is alleged to have been involved in Crime Nos.14 and 329 of 2014 and both the said crimes are under NDPS Act and are subject matter of S.C.Nos.319 and 570 of 2014 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court, Anantapuram.

The allegation of the petitioner that he has been harassed etc., is denied and states that on 16.01.2015, respondent-police received information about the creation of nuisance by some persons, who had gathered at petitioner's house, and thereupon the respondent police rushed to the spot and disbursed the said persons to maintain law and order and kept peace and tranquility in the area. Except that, there is no other reason nor petitioner was required in any other criminal case and after filing charge sheet in the said two criminal cases, referred to above, respondent police did not call the petitioner to the police station.

4. As is evident from the instructions aforesaid, the petitioner's allegations are clearly not substantial.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 18, 2015 LMV