Dismissed

Pola Sridhar v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Telangana HC11 Feb 2022WP/7509/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 151 CPC was dismissed by the High Court of Telangana. The Court held that filing a prayer for FIR registration is not a proper writ jurisdiction exercise and directed the petitioner to approach authorities under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs and the miscellaneous applications stand closed.

Pola Sridhar Vs The State of Telangana and 6… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7509 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pola Sridhar, aged about 44 yearc, Occ.Business, Rio H.No-'1 1-136,Gandhi Nagar, l,4arket Road, Kalvakurthy,Nagarkurnool District

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

I Th tate of Telangana, Rep. by its Principle Secretary, l,4uncipal Administration an dU rban Development Department, Secretariat B.R.K. Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶12

Telangana Pollution Control Board, Paryavaran Bhavan, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶13

District Collector, Nagarkurnool, Telangana State.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalvakurthy, Nagarkurnool.

¶15

Kalvakurthy lvluncipality, Rep by its, Municipal Commissioner, Kalvakurthy, Nagarkurnool District.

¶16

Thasildhar -Kalvakurthi, Nagarkarnool District.

¶17

Aruna Cement Agencies and Radhika Electricals, Rep. by its Proprietor V.B.Anjaneylu Shop.No- 11-113,114 Market Road-Gandhi Nagar Kalvakurthy, Naga*urnool District

¶18

...RESPON DENTS

¶19

Petition under Anicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus, and to declare the inaction by the respodent No. 2 to 6 for the offences commited by the Respondent No.7 as voilative, illegal and arbitrary and against the Article-14,19,21,5'1-A of Constitution of lndian and Section-52(5 )(n ), 161(1 ) and 162 of the Telangana Municipalities Act and section-144 of Criminal Procedure Code and other rights conferred by the constitution to pass such other order or orders may deem fit and^proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petitron 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 dispose the representations dated D1j0-12-2022 made to Respondent No. 3 to 5 and Prajavani Grievance Dt.03-01-2022 made to Respondent No.4 and investigate the matter in connection with, in pursuance of the representations made by the petitioner

¶22

respectively,^{pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other order} or orders^{may deemfit and proper in the circumstances of the case pending disposal} of the above^writ Petition^'

¶23

CH VENKAT^RAMAN Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRl}

¶24

Counsel^{for the RespondentNo 1: GP FORMUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATIONANO} URBAN^DEVELOPMENT

¶25

Counsel^{for the RespondentNo 2: SRIP' SHIVA KUMAR' SC FORTSPCB}

¶26

Counsel^{for the RespondentsNo 3' 4 and 6: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶27

Counsel^{for the RespondentNo 5: SRI N'PRAVEEN KUMAR'SCFOR} MUNCIPALITIES

¶28

Counsel^{for the RespondentNo 7: SMTT' PADMAJA}

¶29

The Court^{made the following:oRDER}

¶30

CE SATISH CIIANDRA SHARMA AND

¶31

¶32

THE IION'BLE THE CHIEF.

¶33

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SITAVILI

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.75O9 of 2022

¶35

ORDER: eer the Hon'ble the Chief Justice S(1ttsh Chafldra Shntudl

¶36

The petitioner before this Court has fi1ed the present writ petition stating that the respondent No.7 has committed certain offences and therefore, action should be initiated against the respondent No.7.

¶37

In the considered opinion of this Court, in case the respondent No.7 has committed some offence and action is required to be initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner does have a remedy under the Code of Crimina-l Procedure itself by filing a complaint. This Court does not find any reason to direct the authorities to register FIR against the respondent No.7. The petitioner shall be free to take recourse to other remedies available under the law.

¶38

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶39

The miscellaneous applications pending, if aly, shall

¶40

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

SD/. MOHD.SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISTANISEG ISTRAR //TRUE COPY' (-, SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

The Principle Secretary,^{N.4uncipalAdmrnistratronand Urban Development} Department, State of^{TelanganaSecretaoatB R.K.Bhavan, Hyderabad.}

¶44

Telangana Pollution^{Control Board, Paryavaran Bhavan,Sanath Nagar,} Hyderabad.

¶45

District Collector,^{Nagarkurnool,TelanganaState.}

¶46

The Revenue Divisional^{Officer, Kalvakurthy, Nagarkurnool}

¶47

The Municipal Commissioner,^{Kalvakurthy Muncipality'Kalvakurthy,} Nagarkurnool District.

¶48

Thasildhar-Kalvakurthi,^{Nagarkarnool District.}

¶49

¶50

One CC to Sri. CH VENKAT RAIITIAN Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

Two CCs to GP for Muncipal Corporation Administration Urban Development ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶52

¶53

Two CCs to GP for Revenue , High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI

¶54

One CC to Sri P. Shiva Kumar SC for TSPCB (OPUC)

¶55

¶56

1^'l . One CC to N Praveen Kumar, SC for Muncipalities (OPUC)

¶57

12.One CC to Smt T.Padmaja , SC (OPUC)

¶58

'1 3. Two CD Copies

¶59

14, One Spare Copy

rsn

HIGH COURT

HC,J

and

AKS,J

OATED:1110212022

,i sTAr€
02 titn 2022
,: c

¶69

ORDER

¶70

WP.No.7509 of 2022

¶71

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶72

WITHOUT COSTS

¶73

4Nn)'

Pola Sridhar v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pola Sridhar v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

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

J. Lenora Lavanya Vs M/s. Kotak Mahindra bank Ltd.

Burra Lingaiah Yadav Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Smt Vishni Bai Harwani, Vs Vorla Seetha Ram Reddy and 111 others

Akber Mohiuddin Ansari, Vs the Union of India, Rep. by Minority of Law and Justice, and 3

Tggda, Hyd. Vs Prl. Secy., Health and 3 Ors.

Mrs.Raqya Bee, Vs M/s.P.S.R.Constructions, represented by its Partner