Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Taken Up vs State Of Ap on 22 May, 2020
Author: K Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISIDICTON) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR A THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY SUO MOTU WP (PIL) NO: 124 OF 2020 Between: In re. Incident against Dr. Sudhakar at Visakhapatnam Petitioner AND 4. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Home Secretary, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam. Fo N Respondents Whereas the suo moto writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is take-up in view of video footage on the incident of Dr. Sudhakar at Visakhapatnam and the Email dated 17-5-2020 addressed by Smt. Vangalapudi Anitha, Telugu Desam Party State Mahila President and Ex Member of Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh (which is directed to be taken up as suo motu WP(PIL) by the Hon'ble Chief Justice ) and also the Newspaper clipping dated 18-05-2020 in the Hindu (English Daily) Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus calling for the records relating to the incident occurred on 17-05-2020 against Dr. Sudhakar, who was suspended from service, and take suitable action against the concerned police officials, who said to have behaved highhandedly. And whereas the petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the materials filed herein and order of the High Court dated 18-05-2020 and 20-05-2020 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader and Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel who appeared as amicus curiae, the Court made the following. ORDER:
"The present suo-motu writ proceeding was firstly initiated on 18.05.2020, as per authorization of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, since there were newspaper reports as well as video clippings particularly sent by one Smt. Vangalapudi Anitha displaying inhuman and barbaric assault on a doctor, known as Dr.Sudhakar by the police publicly. Accordingly, by order dated 18.05.2020, we issued certain directions, particularly a direction to produce Dr. Sudhakar before this Court for examining the correctness of the allegations. The order, dated 18.05.2020 is quoted herein below:
"The present matter has been taken up suo motu as Public Interest Litigation as per the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Justice since there was newspaper cuttings showing tied hands of a person, namely, Dr.Sudhakar, by the police and thrashing him. One E-mail was received, sent by Smt. Vangalapudi Anitha, Telugu Desham Party State Mahila President and Ex-Member of Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh. In one of the clips, it is evident that Dr. Sudhakar had earlier raised his grievance regarding non-supply of Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs)/masks to the doctors and thereafter, he was put under suspension. The clipping shows that on 16.05.2020, the said doctor was thrashed, his hands tied and loaded in a Tempo. We had also seen that clipping through CD on the monitor of the computer along with Sri S.$ri Ram, learned Advocate General, who had appeared through Video Conferencing along with Sri Y. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader.
Without going into the fact or merit of the case after noticing such video clippings as well as paper cuttings, we were inwardly shocked.
During COVID 19 period, while doctors and health workers, taking risk of their lives, are rendering services to the society, such misbehavior with a doctor appears to be deplorable and such action is required to be deprecated.
It is common knowledge that during this COVID period, the entire society is treating doctors as substitutes to God. It is also common knowledge that for saluting them, the Indian Air Force through aircrafts had flown flowers on hospitals and in such a situation, a video showing thrashing of a doctor publicly by Government machinery certainly preeks the conscience of every one including us. .
However, before proceeding further, it would be required firstly to ask the Chief Secretary of the Government of Andhra Pradesh to submit a report on the point whether thrashing of the doctor publicly shown in the newspapers and video clippings are correct or not. If it is true, the State Government is proposing to take what step. The Chief Secretary is also required to examine regarding the fact as to whether Dr.Sudhakar, who was shown to be assaulted was earlier suspended since he raised voice against non supply of PPE/masks.
Learned Advocate General informs that the said Police Constable has already been put under suspension.
The report, which has been placed before us, also indicates that Dr.Sudhakar was in the custody of the police and the Commissioner of Police was not allowing his mother to see him. This aspect is also required to be examined and reflected in the affidavit to be filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh.
On the next date, the Government of Andhra Pradesh will ensure the presence of Dr.Sudhakar before this Court for examining the correctness of the allegations. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, there is no reason for deferring the matter for a longer period. Accordingly, this case is directed to be listed on 20" of this month.
It is made clear that the affidavit must be sworn by the Chief Secretary herself /himself.
Considering the fact that the matter pertains to great importance and it is suo motu, it is desirable to request Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior counsel to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. Learned Advocate General may inform Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel, so that on the next date of hearing, he may appear.
The Registry is directed to supply all relevant materials to Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel today itself.
List the matter on 20.05.2020 as a first case."
2. Again on 20.05.2020, the mater was taken up, but considering the fact that hard copy of counter affidavit as well as interlocutory application filed by the Chief Secretary was not on record, hearing of the matter was deferred and this case was directed to be listed today (22.05.2020). The order, dated 20.05.2020, is quoted herein below: | "By order, dated 18.05.2020, this Court had directed the Chief Secretary of Government of Andhra Pradesh to submit a report on the point whether thrashing of the doctor publicly shown in the newspapers and video clippings were correct or not and if it is true the State Government was proposing to take what step. The Chief Secretary was also required to examine regarding the fact as to whether Dr. Sudhakar, who was shown to be assaulted was earlier, suspended since he raised voice against non-supply of PPE/masks.
Sri Y.N. Vivekanand, learned Government Pleader informs that he has already uploaded the affidavit of the Chief Secretary along with the application for production of Dr. Sudhakar through video conferencing. However, hard copy of affidavit of the Chief Secretary is not on record. Despite the fact that the proceeding is being taken up through video conferencing, learned Government Pleader physically has appeared and submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances, it is difficult to produce Dr. Sudhakar physically before the Court and he requested to allow him to produce Dr. Sudhakar through video conferencing.
Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel who was appointed as Amicus Curiae submits that in the counter affidavit, which has been served on him, a stand has been taken that against Dr. Sudhakar F.1.R. No.353 of 2020, dated 16.05.2020 of IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam has been registered for the offences under Sections 353, 427 and 506 of 1.P.C. He raised an apprehension that there is possibility of the injuries on the person of Dr. Sudhakar and this is the reason that the State is taking a plea not to produce him physically and to produce him through video conferencing. He further submits that it appears that the State Government wants to buy time so that in the meanwhile, injuries, if any, on the person of Dr. Sudhakar may disappear.
The Court is of the opinion that only on apprehension no conclusive finding can be recorded. At the same time, it is required that if F.I.R. has been lodged against a person and due to whatever reason he is kept in hospital, as per procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') in any event, he is required to be examined by a medical expert to ascertain as to whether a person in custody was having any physical injury or not. It is also required that immediately after arresting a person, within 24 hours, the accused is to be produced before the learned Magistrate for authorizing his remand. Besides provisions contained in Cr.P.C. long back in the year, 1997, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal (AIR 1997 SC 610) has already given certain guidelines.
Since on record, there is neither hardcopy of the counter affidavit nor interlocutory application, at the moment, it would be difficult to pass any positive order and as such, this case can be directed to be listed on 22.05.2020 under the same caption as first case. However, as temporary measure, considering the apprehension raised by learned Senior Counsel, who is appearing as Amicus Curiae as well as in view of procedure laid down in Cr.P.C., it would be necessary to direct the learned District and Sessions Judge, Visakhaptnam, to depute a Magistrate to the place where Dr. Sudhakar has been kept to examine him physically as to whether he is having any visible injury and also record his statement and place before this Court by tomorrow evening (21.05.2020). The District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, is directed to do the same forthwith.
Let copy of this order be sent to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, forthwith for its compliance.
Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, has also complained that he has not been supplied the video clippings by learned State Counsel.
Learned government Pleader assures that he will make all those material available to Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, who is appearing as Amicus Curiae by today itself.
Put up on 22.05.2020.
Registry is directed to place on record, the counter affidavit as well as interlocutory application."
3. It is to be noted that the Court was inwardly shocked with the video clippings and news item in which a brutal action by the State Machinery through its Police on a Doctor, was taken, that too during the time when the Doctors and Health Workers were treated as COVID warriors. In such situation, this Court was constrained to take up the matter for gathering correct information. On the first date of hearing i.e. on 18.05.2020, in Court we had seen the video clippings showing that one Dr. Sudhakar was assaulted; his hands were tied from back; forcibly laying him down on the road, being beaten by a constable in barbaric manner and loading him on a three wheeler. This was the reason that we directed the Chief Secretary to bring on record, the entire fact by filing an affidavit. On 20.05.2020, orally, Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader, who had appeared in person in Court, had requested for allowing him to produce Dr. Sudhakar through video conferencing and informed that for this purpose, he had uploaded counter affidavit and interlocutory application. He further had informed that the mental condition of Dr. Sudhakar was not stable for being physically produced before this Court. Since on the said date, hard copy of counter affidavit and interlocutory application were not on record, it was deferred for today (22.05.2020). However, on 20.05.2020, Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae had submitted that the Police wants to buy time so that injuries on the person of Dr.Sudhakar may disappear. With a view to prevent such eventuality, we directed the learned District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam to forthwith depute a Magistrate for physically examining Dr. Sudhakar and also to record his statement.
4, In compliance with order, dated 20.05.2020, learned District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam has communicated the report prepared by learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge - Cum - V_ Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in an envelope along with copy of seven colour photographs showing injuries on the person of Dr. Sudhakar. The said report was examined by this Court. It would be pertinent to incorporate the report and statement of Dr. Sudhakar, which was recorded by learned Magistrate and also visual report of learned Magistrate on the person of Dr. Sudhakar, which is as follows:
"After receipt of the proceedings of the Hon'ble Principal District & Sessions Judge in Dis No.1911 dated 20.05.2020 to proceed forthwith to the place where Dr. Sudhakar has been kept, examine him physically as to whether he has any visible injury and to record his statement, | immediately rushed to the Government Hospital for Mental Care, Visakhapatnam and reached the hospital at 05:15 P.M. | proceeded to the room where Dr. Sudhakar Rao was kept with the help of the staff of hospital, disclosed my identity to Dr. Sudhakar Rao and commenced the recording of the statement. At the time of recording the statement in the closed room, no one except my office subordinate, Sambasiva Reddy was present.
Statement of Dr. Kolaventy Sudhakara Rao recorded by me _ i.e., G. Sreenivasa Reddy, V Additional Junior Civil Judge cum V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam as per the proceedings of the Hon'ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam which is as follows:
1) What is your name?
a) Kolaventy Sudhakara Rao
2) What is your father's name?
a) Sundara rao
3) What is your age?
a) 55 years
4) What is your qualification?
a) MBBS, Diploma in anesthesia (DA)
5) What is your place of residence?
a) D.No.50-117-17/8, Il Floor, Seethammadhara, North Extension, Visakhapatnam-13, After ascertaining the identity and verifying the case sheet from the hospital authorities, | proceeded to record the statement of Dr. Sudhakara Rao | as follows:
| was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon (Anesthesia) in the Area Hospital, Narsipatnam from 01.04.2013. In April, 2020, | asked for normal surgical masks from the Superintendent of the Area Hospital Mrs. Neelaveni. [ was told that there was no stock. One Mr. Nayak was working as the District Coordinator, Hospital Services, Visakhapatnam (DCHS). | was told that normal surgical masks were not available in Central Drug Stores (CDS), Visakhapatnam. | am on treatment for chronic diabetic, hypertensive and Coronary Artery Disease (CAD). | am more prone to corona. | applied for leave. Due to ESMA, | was not granted leave. The RDO, Narsipatnam visited hospital and | asked for masks.
Our hospital was converted into Corona Isolation Centre with one doctor, one staff nurse and one MNO (male nursing orderly). The OP with our hospital was closed. The RDO replied that anesthesian does not require masks since they are not dealing with corona patients. | had upper respiratory tract infection (sore throat). The patient posted for emergency caesarian section (CS) on 06.04.2020 had cough and cold. | asked the staff to ask for N95 mask from the sub-stores. The pharmacist brought one N95 mask, took my signature in register and told me to use it for fifteen days. | recorded video in mobile in operation theatre after surgery about risk faced by OT staff without masks. | went to MLA Petla Ganesh who is current Hospital Committee Chairman to show video recorded in mobile. He was not available at house and | came to know that he was in corona meeting in the Municipal office, Narasipatnam. | went to the Municipal office, waited for one hour and there was no response. | went to the previous chairman of the Hospital Advisory Committee in the earlier Government of A.P. Chintakayala Ayyanna Patrudu. | could not contact him as he was not feeling well, | returned to the Municipal office. | met the RDO who was wearing N95 mask. The MLA of Narsipatnam, the Additional SP of Narsipatnam Narsipatnam Rishwanth Reddy and Cl Somu Naidu were wearing N95 masks. Our Superintendent Mrs. Neelaveni was wearing simple surgical mask. They got angry against me when | asked for N95 masks for operation theatre staff. They abused me and necked me out from the meeting. When | was necked out, media persons were present and surrounded me to enquire about what happened. | explained the incident to the media which was telecasted. Since the incident was telecasted by media and it became viral, | and my family members received several abusive calls from unknown persons. | received suspension orders on 08.04.2020 through Mr. Ramu, ambulance driver, Narsipatnam Area Hospital at 5:00 A.M. Around 10 days ago from today i.e., 20.05.2020, my sons two wheeler bullet bearing No.AP 31 DT 4338 was seized by unknown persons who came in skoda car near backside of Port Trust Hospital. After three days, | went to IV Town Police Station and asked for the lost vehicle of my son. The writer of IV Town Police Station, Mr. Ramu told me to get the persons who seized my son's vehicle. A lady constable caught my hand and cried to leave her. The Police manhandled me and threatened me that they would implicate me in a false case and get me dismissed from employment. My mother came with our advocate. The Police registered case against my son alleging that he was running vehicle during lock down. The Police took away my mobile, car keys, Rs.1,000/- (Thousand Rupees only) cash from my bag and left me.
On 16.05.2020 i.e., last Saturday, | was going to the Andhra Bank, Anakapalle to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs Only) to pay towards Bajaj Housing Finance (flexi loan) by way of cheque. Some one asked me for lift
5. around 2:00 P.M. near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Kailasapuram, Visakhapatnam. | noticed that someone was following me in two wheeler. | changed my mind and decided not to go to Anakapalle due to apprehension of robbery. | took right turn way back to home near Ambedkhar statue, Birla Junction, Visakhapatnam. | halted my car near Port Hospital for urination because | am diabetic. Two traffic police came to me and questioned me about my suspension and other details with an intention to provoke me. The Police took my keys from car, mobile and my purse with ATM cards. They tore my shirt and made me half naked. They telephoned Rakshak. | tried to leave the place in an auto. But, the Police told the autorikshaw person to not stop the auto. | also noticed that Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs only) was taken away and three whisky bottles were kept in the front seat of my car. They beat me with lathis, shoes and hands indiscriminately. They made me to run in order to escape from them. They raised cries to create that | am in drunken state and | ama mad person. | suspected that there was a plot against me to get me dismissed from service. | was taken to IV Town Police Station in auto rickshaw. | was handcuffed in the Police Station from behind and | was made to prostrate on the floor for two hours. The President of Indian Medical Association came to the IV Town Police Station after knowing the news from T.V. The President was not allowed into Police Station. My mother got information and she came to the Police Station. | was shifted to KGH. | was shifted from the KGH Causality after two hours to this Hospital. | was diagnosed with acute stress psychosis.
After recording the statement, | proceeded to identify any visible injuries on the body of the Dr. Sudhakara Rao with the consent of Dr. Sudhakara Rao, | found following injuries to my naked eye which are shown by Dr. Sudhakara Rao:-
Bruise with abrasion on the lower side of left eye.
Bruise on the left leg big toe.
Abrasion between index finger and middle finger of left hand. Bruise of approximate size of palm on back side of right thigh. Bruise on left upper arm.
Nait prick marks on the right forearm.
| took the photographs of the injuries on the body of Dr. Sudhakara Rao in my mobile. | obtained signature of Dr. Sudhakara Rao in each page of handwritten statement recorded by me. | concluded the proceedings at 08.00 P.M."
On going through the statement of Dr, Sudhakar, it is evident that such a statement reflects cognizable offence and as such it is necessary to issue direction for registering F.1.R. The learned Magistrate, in his report, had noticed about six injuries on the person of Dr. Sudhakar.
6. In the present case, counter affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary, which is based on a report submitted by Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, shows that while Dr. Sudhakar was produced for a medical examination on 16.05.2020, he was having only one injury; whereas learned Judicial Magistrate, who examined the doctor, physically on 20.05.2020, has noticed six injuries. Those injuries are also reflected in the photographs, which have been brought on record along with the report. This aspect is also required to be enquired/investigated by the Investigating Agency.
7. Along with the counter affidavit, one C.D. was also placed in an envelope, which was opened in the Court and by inserting the same in the system, we had seen the video clipping. On going through the same, it is evident that those clippings are not in continuation, but in piece-meal. The C.D., which was received and seen earlier, is also not complete and as such, on examination of two video clippings one provided along with the counter affidavit of the Chief Secretary and another provided by Smt. Vangalapudi Anitha, it would be difficult for this Court to come to a definite finding.
8. There are certain facts in the counter affidavit in conflict with the statement of Dr. Sudhakar, which creates serious doubt in the mind of the Court. It is not in dispute that as per the F.I.R. i.e. Crime No.353 of 2020, registered by the IV Town Police Station, Visakhaptam, the alleged occurrence of nuisance was firstly noticed at 3:45 P.M. on 16.05.2020. As per the statement made in para 2 (a) of the counter affidavit, it is evident that there were altogether four Police personnel and three auto drivers at the time of alleged occurrence. In such situation, it is difficult to perceive as to how the doctor was allowed to create nuisance and why he could not be overpowered by constables themselves immediately. If the alleged occurrence had taken place at 3:45 P.M., there is no explanation as to why much belatedly first of all Dr. Sudhakar was produced before the medical officer at 18:15 hours (6.15 P.M.). In the affidavit, there is no explanation. However, in the statement of Dr. 10 Sudhakar, which was recorded by learned Magistrate, it has been indicated that he was kept in Police Station, where he was administered atrocity for about two hours. In the counter affidavit there is no whisper on this point. !t also requires deep enquiry/investigation.
9. Again while the learned Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of Dr. Sudhakar on 20.05.2020, did not whisper as to whether Dr. Sudhakar had displayed any abnormal behaviour. On examining his entire statement, one can come to the conclusion that Dr. Sudhakar was in balanced mental state. As per the stand taken in the counter affidavit, Dr. Sudhakar, after lodging F.I.R., was produced in King George Hospital and without any delay he was shown to be shifted to Government Hospital for Mental Care. On 18.05.2020, while this Court directed for production of Dr. Sudhakar before this Court, on perusal of Annexure Vill to the counter affidavit of Chief Secretary i.e. the report of Superintendent, Government Hospital for Medical Care, Visakhapatnam, dated 19.05.2020, it appears that the Superintendent had reported that Dr. Sudhakar requires observation for two more weeks. Again on the same day, a meeting of Medical Board was conducted. In its report, which has been brought on record as Annexure XIl at page 32 in para 3 of the Medical Board report, it has been indicated that the doctor may become unmanageable during travel, which may warrant physical restraints. Such a stand, which was taken by the authority concerned, after direction of this Court for production of Dr. Sudhakar, gives an impression that something fishy has been done. In any event, we are not medical experts and as such, we cannot record any finding on such issue. Those facts are required to be properly dealt with by the investigating Agency.
10. The statement of Dr. Sudhakar, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, which has been incorporated herein above, and same statement is on record, categorically depicts commission of cognizable offences and accordingly, it is required to be formally registered and investigated properly. The Investigating Agency while investigating the case would be required to enquire entire allegations made in the étatement of Dr.Sudhakar, irrespective of the allegation of assault.
1111. Presently, though Dr. Sudhakar was shown to be apprehended by the Police on 46.05.2020 and also on the same date an F.I.R. vide Crime No.353 of 2020 was registered against Dr. Sudhakar, for the offences under Sections 353, 427 and 506 of IPC, but to the reasons best known to the Police. no fact has been brought on record as to whether the Police had taken any pain for keeping Dr. Sudhakar remanded either in the judicial custody or Police custody. It requires investigation as to whether the period during which the doctor is/was in custody of the police can be considered as illegal custody or not and if there is no explanation, there can be possibility of application of serious penal offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. But, all these facts are required to be dealt with by the Investigating Agency. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as considering the fact that Andhra Pradesh State Police has registered a case against Dr. Sudhakar and statement of Dr. Sudhakar recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate indicates allegation against the State Police and its administration, in all fairness, it would be appropriate to direct to register F.I.R. on the basis of statement of Dr. Sudhakar referred herein above. Moreover, the statement of Dr. Sudhakar recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate also indicates that he had made allegation as if in a larger conspiracy, he was victimized. In the aforesaid background, the Court is of the opinion that an independent Investigating Agency only can ensure fair and proper investigation in the matter. The Court is of the opinion that in such situation, the Central Bureau of Investigation shall be the best Agency to fairly investigate the case. Accordingly, the Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director, is requested to ensure registration of regular case/FIR forthwith on the strength of the statement of Dr. Sudhakar, which has been referred to herein above and get it investigated to its logical end.
12. Since there is already allegation by Dr. Sudhakar against the State Police as well as Administration, it would also be necessary that Central Bureau of Investigation may take up investigation in Crime No.353 of 2020 of IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam and investigate it also, for its logical end. Accordingly, !V Town Police, Visakhapatnam/A.P. Police is restrained from further investigating the present case and it is entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation. It goes without saying 12 that while investigating the case, the Investigating Agency, i.e., Central Bureau of Investigation would also ensure as to whether the incident had taken place as a result of targer conspiracy or not.
13. | The Government of Andhra Pradesh through its Chief Secretary and Director General of Police is directed to ensure full cooperation and assistance to Central Bureau of Investigation.
14. The Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh is directed to provide all the petitions and material available on record as certified to be true copy of them as and when approached by the Officer of Central Bureau of Investigation. It is directed to forthwith communicate this order to the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi.
15. The Central Bureau of Investigation is further directed to submit its report to this Court within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We must convey our gratitude to Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, who has rendered proper assistance to the Court for coming to its right conclusion.
16. Put upon 20" July, 2020."
SD/- E.KAMESWARA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR ASSISTANT WEASTRAR . The District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
(e-mail/FAX) The Chief Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District ( e.mail/ by RPAD) The Home Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
The Central Bureau of Investigation, Plot NO. 5-B, 6" Floor, CGO Complex,Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 (Speed Post / Fax / Mail) The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam. (3 to 5 by RPAD) . The Registrar General, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi (By special Messenger) The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi (By special Messenger) Sri P. Veera Reddy, Senior Counsel (Amicus Curiae), by e-mail
0. Two CC to Sri Y. N. Vivekananda, Government Pleader, High Court of A.P at Amaravati (By special Messenger)
11. Two spare copy MSR /2- «722. Sty, iy Fee Pt Uste behia porn, /FTRUE COPY// Fo
--, Bo SND MR Ww ON 14 HIGH COURT RKJ & KSRJ DATED: 22/05/2020 Note : POST ON 20.07.2020 ORDER WP(PIL).No.124 of 2020 DIRECTION Eo RM opp