Dismissed

Jangili Sathaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Aug 2021WP/10888/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Jangili Sathaiah seeking a writ of mandamus to change the investigating officer in Crime No.03/2018. Directions were issued to the Respondent No.2 to handle the representation filed by the petitioner regarding the investigation details.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Jangili Sathaiah Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE S1 r.;;;,,i 615,35 fl3ji"",ili^Ar HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THI ,woi.,buiilET,fJ#."^i+r".#.'

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT PETITION N o. 108 80 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Jangili Sathaiah, S/o,Late Narsaiah, Aoed ng'i;Jtt;,;''nj;ir,ri.,isi,.1Viirrs;;'N;;;;r#,M?o3l"rr,lr33*r8flfi;,,?:B:pr,,"r.

¶8

AND

¶9

...PETIT|ONER

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep by its principal Secretary, Home Department ^^{Secretariat, Saifabad]HyOerabLd.''- i ""v'vu}

¶11

The Director Generat'of F-olici-LltaOit<apoot, Hyderabad, T.S

¶12

rhe Superintendent of poti;;, bur;#i dili,iti,',r.s.

¶13

Station House Officer, Nragiiim iti["'s'i"iiJli'at Suryapet District. r.S

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue a writ or writs more appropriatery a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to change the Respondent No.4 as rnvestigation officer in crime No.03/2018 dated.12.01.20rB u/sec.42o, 423, 46s r/w-34 rpc and 156 (3) cr.p.con the file of the Respondent No.4 is illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles natural justices and against the Article-14, 16, 19, 2j and 300(4) constitutron of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to dispose of the petitioner representation dated.26.05.2020 forthwith

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to dispose of the petitioner representation dated.26.05.2020 forthwith, pending disposal of the writ^petition in the interest of^justice and equity. lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶18

Between:

¶19

Jangili Kishan Rao, S/o. Late Mallaiah,^{Aged about68 years,Occ: Retired} Employee, R/o. H.No.^{1 -1 -42216,} Nehru Nagar, Suryapet.

¶20

Jangili'srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Mallaiah,^{Aged about 661ears, Occ: Agriculture,} 'Ryo.-tt.No.Z-3-42212, Vijayanagar Cotony, Near Saibaba Temple, Byepass Road, Khammam Town.

¶21

Both are N/o.Phanigiri Village^{of Nagaram Mandal, SuryapetDistrict.}

¶22

...IMPLEAD PETITIONERS

¶23

AND

¶24

Janoili Sathaiah, S/o.Late^{Narsaiah, Aged about 86 years,Occupation'} Agri;rttut", R/o ihanigiri^{Village, Nagaram Mandal, SuryapetDistrict,T S'}

¶25

.,.RESPONDENTM/RIT^PETITIONER

¶26

i ii?E+i;l*:rffi#H.:3:silk-'Iiitr**,'il.' ,: -s t,i6., nt

¶27

t Ii.",,3X ofi ll:.": 3?[:$'-'iUIi#' FZi. " State. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶28

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶29

petition under section^{151 cpc prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition' the High Court may be pleasedto implead} themastheRespondentNo.5and6inWPNo.,loBSS/202ointheinterestofjustice.

¶30

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI J' RAGHURAM}

¶31

Counsel^{for the Respondents:GP FOR HOME}

¶32

Counsel^{for the Proposed Respondents:SRI K'V' SUDHAKAR}

¶33

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶34

THE IION'BLE SIII JI.ISTICE AI}HINAND KUN,IAIT SIIAVILI wl{IT PETITION No.l 0888 ol'2020

¶35

ORDE,II:

¶36

This writ pctition is being disposcd o1'at the adrnission sraq,.. with the consent of both palties

¶37

This rvrit petition is tiled seeliing the lbllowing leliel': ".. to i:sue it \ rit ttr'\ riLs ttrotc uplrrtipiiirtelr ;t \:rit ,.rt \4arttlirnttt. directirtg the tesn()r)derll Nrr.3 to cltatlgc llte rcsprrtdcrtt No.-1 as lnrcstiliatiort^C)Jliccr irr^Crirnc No.i^'10 l S dirte^(l 12.01^.1(rl l{^Lt':ie c.'i10.^{-113. -}(r5 r'''tt'} -l'l ll)C anti 156^(.1 ) Cr.i'}.( ott thc^jilc ol'lltc^{rcsPt>ntietll} No.-l as illt'sal. ilbitlan.^{riolatirco1' plirlcipies of} natural .justice and against the^{,\rticlc 1"1' 16.19. 2l and} 300(A) o I' ConstitLrtirln^{ol lntliaand cottsccltrcltlll'diruct} the I{esllonilerlt^No.2 to^{dispose ol' thc pc{ititrnt'l'} l'L:prescntat iorl clarcd^{2(r.05.202t1lirrtlrrvithalrtl passsr'tch} othcr ordcr or clrclcrs^{as lhisI Ion'bleCourt nlal'tlccrn llt} irttd propct irl titc^{circurllstitttccs ol lllc citsc ^'}

¶38

Heard Sri .1. [laghLrram.^{coLrrrsel1br the petitiorler,arrdlhe} Governtnent^{Pleader tbr llorneappealinglor the rcsporldents'}

¶39

4.ltlrasbccncontetldg.dblLht-pcrititlnclthatollthecorlrplaint made by him. a^{case irr Crime No.i of 2018 on the llle ot'P S'} Nagalau.r, Suryapet^{District, has beenregisteredon l2 0l 2018 The} grievarrce o1- Lhe^{petitioneIis that the .1'r' respolrdenl is trot properll'} dischargirrghisdutics.lrltltosesetofcircutllstallces,thcpetitiOllclhas submitted a^{cletailedrepresentatiolllo the 2''d resllotlcientotr} 26.05.?020 rcqllesting^{the 2,,.1 respor.rde rrt to chansc thc Iu!estigatirrll}

¶40

l \h. \ l)^.( Lir\sl, I rlLl

¶41

O1'flcer in the srid Cllinte No,3 ol'1018. but so fur'the 2"'r lespondent has not plLs:ed'urv orders on the saicl representai iolt.

¶42

,.t. l-hcre lore. counsel tbr the petitiorlcr subniitIecl that uppropriate orders bc passid in the urit petition clirecting the l' r.espon(ient to consider lhc representation submitted by the petitior]er.on 16.05.1020 ancl pass ,rpplopt inte otders in accr.rr.clancc * ith lau .

¶43

-i. Cicrvurnr':rcnt Pleader appcaring lbl the r.espondenls had submirtecl thar since the petitioner's representation is pe-ncling * ith rhe 2"'i re sp.rcltrr.. Lhc l ''i 'espoadent^{rr,Lrlr.l c.rrsicle.tnL- sr.i,rc urrti I.lass} ltppt of-rlilitc olrlels in nccoldance u ith lau.

¶44

l'his Cr'Lr't. ha'i.g co.side.t'cr the 'i'al sLri.,rissio.s ,rii(rc b, lealnecl co'urse I tbl lesl;ective palties, is or-the consrcler.etl \ i!-\ that this u,rit petitro, can be disposed of directing the 2,,,i respondent to consicle' the r,-'presentation submitted by the petitiorer o. 26.05.2020 and pass appt.opriate orders, in accorclance tith larv. uithin a .easonable pe'iod of rinre, prel'e,ably within eighr .,vec-ks iiorr rhe date olrece'ilrt r;1'u co1t1. o1'this or.dcr..

¶45

\ itlr rhe abore obser.vations, this ri,r.it pe.tirron is tlisposed ol. No ordc'r'as tc costs.

¶46

PcrrJ inq rniscir-l lancous pL-titiL)ns. i l- ar:r,. sltal l stantl . loscd.

¶47

SD/-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT'BFGISTRAR \ 'TRUE^coPY// SEcTIffioFFIcER To, 1 2 9n" The Director General of 99^{to SriJnagnuram,} police,. Advo.;r"'idpubi'r""'""Lakad ikapool, Hyderabad, T.S 3 to GP for"Home. Hign bourti6r fr!'st"t" of relangana ar Hyderabad. ,t#,:r?"t 4 sudhakar, Advocate (opuc) 5. ffS 33 t"o|;:I " 6. One Spare bopy. IVP ..

¶48

HIGH^COURT

¶49

DATED:10^10812021

¶50

-,-i--".=S-
,1 ,nL ::l /'1-6 ]\i..
J ,l
25 Auct0?l .L, tl

¶51

ORDER

¶52

WP.No.10888^{of 2020}

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

t
Jt

Jangili Sathaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jangili Sathaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. S. Sandya U.G.C. Research Scientist, Vs the University of Hyd. and 2 Ors.

R. Prabhakar Vs Sri Rahul Bojja IAS and 2 others

Shakapur Y Gram Panchayat, Vs State of Telangana

Yadagiri Reddy Vs Union of India

Y.V. Rao, Medak District, Vs a.P.State Road Transport Corporation and Another

Orsu Ashok Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others