Gadireddy Rama Krishna Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Advocate - GP FOR HOME — WP/15113/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226.

CNR: APHC010288222026

Filing Number

WP/23041/2026

Filing Date

01-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP/15113/2026

Registration Date

01-Jun-2026

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

HOME DEPARTMENT (MISC.MATTERS) ( 22 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Gadireddy Rama Krishna Reddy

    Adv. G L NAGESWAR RAO

  2. 2.Gadireddy Bala Gangadhara Reddy

  3. 3.Gadireddy Lakshmi Srinivasa Reddy

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh Advocate - GP FOR HOME

  2. 2.The Director General of Police

  3. 3.The Superintendent dent of Police

  4. 4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police

  5. 5.The Inspector of Police

  6. 6.Inspector of Police

  7. 7.The Station House Officer

  8. 8.The Station House Officer

  9. 9.M.S. Enterprises

Case History

  1. 02-Jun-2026

    A. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/15113/2026 The petition sought a Writ of Mandamus to restrain police from interfering with petitioners' possession of fish tanks in Pamulapadu village. The petitioners claimed police were threatening them at the behest of a private party (9th respondent) and filing false criminal cases. The Court found no evidence of unjustified civil interference; two FIRs (Crime Nos. 96-97/2026) were validly registered following complaints of violent attacks and monetary disputes. The petition was disposed of at the admission stage with no relief granted; petitioners remain free to pursue legal remedies according to law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  2. 01-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/15113/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/15113/2026 The petition sought a Writ of Mandamus to restrain police from interfering with petitioners' possession of fish tanks in Pamulapadu village. The petitioners claimed police were threatening them at the behest of a private party (9th respondent) and filing false criminal cases. The Court found no evidence of unjustified civil interference; two FIRs (Crime Nos. 96-97/2026) were validly registered following complaints of violent attacks and monetary disputes. The petition was disposed of at the admission stage with no relief granted; petitioners remain free to pursue legal remedies according to law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case