Samudrala Jampaiah v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Telangana HC19 Feb 2020WP/1331/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought declaration that the 2nd respondent's refusal to register a complaint against the 3rd respondent was illegal and unconstitutional. Court observed that a notice was issued to the petitioner regarding action taken and closed the writ petition, leaving petitioner to approach the proper forum if aggrieved.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; petitioner directed to approach proper forum if aggrieved by notice dated 29.01.2020.

Samudrala Jampaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 2… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE T.VI NOD KUMAR

¶2

WRI T PETI TI ON No.1331 of 2020

¶3

O R D E R :

¶4

The present writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 2^nd respondent in not registering the complaint, dated 17.12.2019, lodged by the petitioner, against the 3^rd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

¶6

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, dated 30.01.2020, submits that, based on the complaint made by the petitioner, on 17.12.2019, at 17.45 hours, a GD entry was made and after enquiry, it revealed that the 3^rd respondent conducted his legitimate duties and he did not abuse or beat the petitioner as alleged by him, as such, the petitioner lodged a false complaint against the 3^rd respondent and the 2^nd respondent intimated the same to the petitioner by way of notice, dated 29.01.2020, sent through registered post, vide No.RN151512580IN, dated 30.01.2020. Learned Assistant Government Pleader placed on record the written instructions, dated 30.01.2020, as well as a copy of the notice, dated 29.01.2020, along with a copy of the GD entry register, as directed by this Court on 17.02.2020, to verify as to whether the complaint made by the petitioner having been noted therein.

¶7

On a perusal of the copy of the GD entry register produced before this Court, it is seen that based on the complaint made by the 3^rd respondent, on 17.12.2019, at 17.15 hours, a GD entry was made

¶8

¶9

against the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner made a counter complaint against the 3^rd respondent, on the same day, at 17.45 hours, which has also been entered in the GD entry register.

¶10

Having regard to the fact that the authorities have issued a notice to the petitioner with regard to the action taken on the complaint made to the 2^nd respondent, this Court is of the opinion that no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. However, it is open for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the proper forum, in accordance with law, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the notice, dated

¶11

29.01.2020, issued by the 2^nd respondent.

¶12

Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is closed.

¶13

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No order

¶14

as to costs.
_____________________
JUSTI CE T.VI NOD KUMAR
Date:19.02.2020
GJ

Samudrala Jampaiah v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samudrala Jampaiah v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S Venkata Rao Vs the State of Telangana

Seggyam Komaraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Ayesha Bin Abdad Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Sanoj Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

M/ s. Ap Product Vs The State of Telangana

Vennam Venkatesh Vs The State of Telangana