SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 36745

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Kankati Sunitha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 35165/2025



THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.35165 of 2025

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent respondents. With their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:-

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein more particularly Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in not permitting the Petitioners to install the CC Cameras to House bearing No.4-58 (Old No.5-10) situated at Miryala Village, Noothankal Mandal, Suryapet District, so as to protect themselves from anti-social elements is illegal, arbitrary, high-handedness and violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein to permit the Petitioners herein to install the CC Cameras to house bearing No.4- 58 (Old No. 5-10), situated at Miryala Village, Noothankal Mandal, Suryapet District, and further direct the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to provide protection to life and liberty of the Petitioners herein and to pass…”

3. Brief facts of the case are stated that the petitioners are residents of Miryala Village, Noothankal Mandal, Suryapet District. Petitioner No.1 was worked as Ex-Sarpanch of Miryala Village and petitioner No.2 worked as Ex-Chairman, PACS. On complaint of Ms.Gunaganti Anitha against petitioners, the respondent No.5 registered a crime vide FIR No.45 of 2025 dated 25.03.2025 for the offence under Sections249, 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 61(2), 103(2) read with 190 of BNS, 2023 and the same is pending for investigation and petitioners have not received any summons from the competent Court. It is further submitted that basing on FIR No.45 of 2025 the police had remanded petitioners to judicial custody and later they were released on regular bail. The case of the petitioners is that since there is an imminent threat to their life and liberty from their rivalry group, petitioners intend to install CC Cameras (Closed-Circuit Television) to their house bearing No.4-58 (old No.5-10), situated at Miryala Village. Subsequently rivalry group members were threatening petitioners not to install CC Cameras to their house. Therefore, on 19.09.2025 petitioners made a complaint and requested the respondent No.4 to provide protection for them to install CC Cameras. Further the case of the petitioners is that on 14.11.2025, one Ponnam Nagaraju and Macha Mallesh have completely damaged the petitioners CC Cameras. Hence, petitioners made a complaint before respondent No.5 and police registered a crime vide FIR No.218 of 2025 against the said persons for the offence under Sections 329(4), 303(2), 324(4) of BNS, 2023. It is further submitted that there is danger to petitioners life and liberty petitioners requested respondent Nos.4 and 5 to provide police protection for installing CC Cameras. However, respondent Nos.4 and 5 orally instructed them not to install CC Cameras and petitioners requested to provide protection to their life and liberty from the anti-social elements. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that respondent authorities did not obstruct the petitioners from installing the CC Cameras to their above said house at any point of time. Moreover for installation of CC Cameras there is no need to obtain permission from police, hence the the allegations made by the petitioners were denied. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 lodged a compliant with the respondent No.4 dated 19.09.2025, stating that when she tried to erect CC Cameras to her house, her mother Jayamma and Guniganti Venkanna opposed fixing of said CC Camera and quarreled. The petitioner No.1 requested to provide police protection to the petitioners for fixing the said CC Camera

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top