The Andhra Pradesh High Court permitted withdrawal of a writ seeking mandamus for police action, without examining the underlying legal issues; this decision leaves existing precedent undisturbed and holds no binding or persuasive authority for future cases involving police inaction or writ remedies.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/21969/2020 of Perumalla Immanuel, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, CNR APHC010331112020 |
| Date of Registration | 23-11-2020 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | WITHDRAWN |
| Judgment Author | Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | None (petition withdrawn before legal adjudication) |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure (Writ of Mandamus, Police Inaction) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the police are bound to act upon a complaint under Article 226 (Mandamus) |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petition sought mandamus for police to act on complaint; counsel sought withdrawal; petition dismissed as withdrawn. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | None (no binding value, as no legal issue was adjudicated) |
| Persuasive For | None |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus against police inaction was withdrawn before any legal issue could be adjudicated.
- No principles were laid down regarding statutory duty, constitutional rights, or scope of mandamus.
- This withdrawal means the order cannot be cited as authority on police obligations or writ procedure.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The counsel for the petitioner requested withdrawal of the writ petition.
- The court recorded this submission and dismissed the writ as withdrawn.
- No merits or questions of law were examined, and the order was limited to acknowledgment of withdrawal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Counsel submitted, as per instructions from the party, that they wished to withdraw the writ petition.
Respondent
- Learned counsel for respondents was present; no substantive arguments recorded or advanced.
Factual Background
The petitioner lodged a complaint on 27-10-2020 with local police regarding alleged inaction against certain individuals. He sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226, alleging arbitrary and illegal failure by the Station House Officer to act on his complaint. The petition sought direction for the police to conduct a preliminary enquiry, register a crime, and investigate. During proceedings, counsel sought withdrawal of the petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India was invoked, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct police action.
- The judgment did not analyze or interpret any statutory provision, as the petition was withdrawn prior to consideration.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions recorded; single judge order.
Procedural Innovations
None recorded; standard withdrawal process applied.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Status Quo maintained as the case was withdrawn before decision on merits.