Dismissed

R.Sandeep Goud v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Oct 2019WA/750/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed this writ appeal. The appellant challenged a Single Judge's order refusing to direct authorities to conclude an enquiry into false accusations of alcohol adulteration made against a Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society, over which the appellant claimed a dispute existed. The Court held the petition lacked merit and constituted an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions stood dismissed.

R.Sandeep Goud Vs State of Telangana — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶3

WRIT APPEAL No.750 of 2019

Date: 18.10.2019

Between:

R. Sandeep Goud

… Appellant

and The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. …Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Mr. Thota SVLN Swamy Counsel for the respondent NoS.1 to 3: GP for Excise The Court made the following:

¶9

¶10

HCJ & AAR, J W.A. No.750 of 2019 Dt: 18.10.2019

¶11

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

¶12

Mr. R. Sandeep Goud, the appellant, has challenged the legality of the order dated 29.08.2019, passed by a learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.18676 of 2019, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, wherein the appellant had sought a direction that the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Gadwal, should be directed to conclude the enquiry initiated against the respondent No.4, the Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society.

¶13

Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner claims to be a Toddy Tapper by profession. He has submitted an application to the respondent No.4, the Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society, for being included in it as a Member. However, the respondent No.4 has declined his request. The appellant further submits that he has the right to establish a Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society. However, he is being deprived of the licence to tap the toddy trees. Since the appellant came to know that the respondent No.4 was adulterating the toddy with Alprazolam, a prohibited chemical, on 03.08.2019, he submitted an application before the respondent No.3, the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, against the respondent No.4. Although an enquiry was initiated upon his application, the same has not been concluded by the respondent No.3. Hence, the appellant has filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. However, by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

¶14

This Court has raised a pointed query to the learned counsel for the appellant as to how the appellant’s civil or fundamental

¶15

¶16

HCJ & AAR, J W.A. No.750 of 2019 Dt: 18.10.2019

¶17

rights are violated in case the enquiry is not concluded against the respondent No.4. The learned counsel submits that in case the enquiry were concluded, the appellant may be made a member of the Society and may be permitted to establish a Toddy Tappers Cooperative Society at his behest. However, the answer given by the learned counsel does not answer the issue as to how civil or fundamental rights of the appellant are being violated? Merely because there is a distinct possibility in future, a writ petition cannot be filed only on the basis of surmises, conjectures, and apprehensions.

¶18

Moreover, the learned Single Judge is justified in observing that the writ petition has been filed only to wreak vengeance on the respondent No.4. Hence, the writ petition has been filed with an ulterior motive; it tantamounts to abuse of process of law and the process of Court.

¶19

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This writ appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.

¶21

________________________________________ (RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, CJ)

¶22

_____________________________ (A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J)

¶23

Date: 18.10.2019 va

R.Sandeep Goud v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sandeep Goud v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaddem Suvarna Vs The State of Telangana.

Daravath Mamatha Vs the State of Telangana

N.Padma Vs The State of Telangana,and 2 others

Kum. G. Govinda Lakshmi Vs High Court for the State of Telangana

Kolla Ranga Rao, Vs The State of Telengana

P. Praneel Chander Vs State of Telangana