MACCHA PADMAVATHI vs State of Andhra pradesh Advocate - GP FOR HOME — WP/12727/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 15th May 2026.
CNR: APHC010222132026
Filing Number
WP/17873/2026
Filing Date
23-Apr-2026
Registration No
WP/12727/2026
Registration Date
30-Apr-2026
Judge
Balaji Medamalli
Coram
Balaji Medamalli
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
WP ( 28 )
Sub-Category
HOME DEPARTMENT (MISC.MATTERS) ( 22 )
Judicial Branch
WRIT Section
Decision Date
15-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MACCHA PADMAVATHI
Adv. ANGADA SATYA RAGHAVENDRA
-
2.MACCHA SARAT KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Andhra pradesh Advocate - GP FOR HOME
-
2.The District collector.
Adv. GP FOR REVENUE
-
3.The super-indent of police,
-
4.The Circle inspector of police.
-
5.The sub-inspector of police,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
15-May-2026
Balaji MedamalliView PDF
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the writ petition filed by Maccha Padmavathi and Maccha Sarat Kumar against police officials for allegedly calling them to the police station without proper notice or legal proceedings. The court directed respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioners' daily life and personal liberty except through due process of law, while rejecting the petitioners' allegations due to lack of documentary evidence supporting their claims of police interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
15-May-2026
Admission (Home)
Balaji Medamalli
-
14-May-2026
Admission (Home)
Y. Lakshmana Rao
-
04-May-2026
Y. Lakshmana RaoView PDF
-
04-May-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/12727/2026
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the writ petition filed by Maccha Padmavathi and Maccha Sarat Kumar against police officials for allegedly calling them to the police station without proper notice or legal proceedings. The court directed respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioners' daily life and personal liberty except through due process of law, while rejecting the petitioners' allegations due to lack of documentary evidence supporting their claims of police interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts