Disposed

M.K. Sridhar Goud v. The Government of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Dec 2023WP/18838/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to stop police interference with civil repairs at a disputed property. The court disposed of the matter by directing police not to interfere with pending civil disputes between parties.

What did the court decide?

Injunction directing respondent No.2 not to interfere with pending civil disputes between petitioner and respondent No.3.

M.K. Sridhar Goud Vs The Government of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 18838 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

M.K. Sridhar Goud, S/o. Late M.Kanakalingam,^{Aged59 years, Occ;Advoca{e, R/o.} Plot No.2, 1'' Floor, Priya Colony, Kakaguda, Secunderabad.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Government of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Principal Secretary,(Home)'} Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-

¶12

The Station House Officer, Kharkhana Police^{Station, Hyderabad District.}

¶13

M. Anand, Sio Late M. Narasimha, Aged about^{41 years, Rl/o.H.No'3-7-45,} (Western Portion), Kakaguda, Trirnulgiri Post, Secunderabad-50001 5.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition Under Article 226 oI lhe Conslitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more^{particularlyonein} the nature of Writ of Mandamus^{declaringthe i{legal action of the 2d respondent} in stalling the repair activity carried^{out by the petitioner at housebearing No.3-7-} 45 (Eastern^portion) admeasuring^{73 Sq yardssituatedat Kakakguda,} secunderabad by coming^{onto the house of the petitioner and threatening to} book false criminal cases^{if petitionercoMucts repair activities in subjecthouse} and harassing the^{petitioner is withoutany manner of right and jurisdictioneven} though^petitioner has^{not committed any offenceas illegal, arbitrary exerciseof} power and in violation of Article 14, 19,21 of^{Constitutionof lndia and} consequenly direct^{the 2nd respondentnot to harass andinterferewithrepair} activity of^{petitionerhouse.}

¶16

I.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶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 2nd respondent not to interfere and harass the petitioner by stalling the repair activity carried out by the petitioner at house bearing No.3-7-45 (Eastern portion) admeasuring 73 Sq. yards situated at Kakakguda, secunderabad.

¶18

Counsil for the Petitioner : SRt B.SH|VA RAM SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI pERl PRABHAKAR

¶19

The Court made the following ORDER

¶20

¶21

HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE C,V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18838 ot 2o23

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliei-

¶24

'...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction -more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the illegal action of respondent No.2 in stalling the repair activity carried out by the petitioner at house bearing No.3-7-45, Eastern portion admeasuring⁷³ Square yards situated at Kakakguda, Secunderabad by coming onto the house of^the petitioner and threatening to book false criminal caSes if petitioner conducts repair activities in subject house and harassing the petitioner^is without any manner of right and^jurisdiction even though petitioner has not committed any^offence as illegal arbitrary exercise of^power and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct respondent^No.2 not to harass and interfere with repair activity of petitioner house..."

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that the grandfather of the petitioner by name M.Veeraiah is the owner of house

¶26

¶27

¶28

CVBR, J wp 18838 2023

¶29

bearing No.3-7-45 admeasuring 73 square yards situated^at Kakaguda, Trimulgiri Post, Secunderabad. lt is the further case of the petitioner that his tenant filed Rent Control Case No.9 of 2O23 on the frle of the Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Secunderabad and the said Court also granted interim orders in I.A.No.46 of 2023, dated O7.O7.2O23 directing the petitioner herein to make necessary repairs on the roof of the subject property. The grievance of the petitioner is that when he is carrying out necessary repairs, respondent No.3 is interfering with the same and threatening him to stop the repair work.

¶30

Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has vehemently contended that there are serlous disputes with regard to the ownership and possession over the subject property and respondent No.3 also filed necessary application opposing the claim of the petitioner herein. It is further submitted by respondent No.3 that since the petitioner has made attempts to criminally trespassing into the subject property, he was constrained to lodge a complaint before respondent No.2.

,.,/

I I

( I

CVBR, J wp_18838 2023

¶36

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. I and 2, has submitted that respondent No.3 had lodged a complaint and on examination of the sarne, it is reveared that there are civil disputes pending between the petitioner and respondent No.3, therefore, the complaint filed by respondent No.3 is closed as tivil in nature,.

¶37

This Court, without expressing any opinion with regard to the inter se disputes between the parties and since it is stated in the affidavit that respondent No.2 is interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.2 not to interfere with the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and respondent No.3 in any manner and if either of the parties file any complaint and if the same reveal cognizabre offence, respondents-police are directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶38

¶39

CVI]R. J wp lli838 2023

¶40

¶41

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is

¶42

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

7 . As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶44

any, shall stand closed.

¶45

/,rRUEcoPYt ^',r**,*$T::

¶46

¶47

] ii:,.ffi^f1.::g:f:' (Home), Government orreransana, Secretariat

¶48

;,#".#r[EJ#.",ffilfl?fi^{-l:li[?1'n:'.,,:,f}

¶49

?,?f,,;;;o,ooo,*,

¶50

.of.^{ff:333":i"?s^ivaRam sharma, Advocatetopucl}

{fi,'l,-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011212023

ORDER

$E STA rci
q
ooJ 2 I JAl'l 202{
.k
*
gO
DE spnr cs

WP.No.18838 of 2023

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WTHOUT COSTS

l-<br><br>\ \ 4({r-

M.K. Sridhar Goud v. The Government of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K. Sridhar Goud v. The Government 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

Md. Faizuddin Vs The State of Telangana

K. Neethu Vs The State of Telangana

Khaja Nawazuddin Vs The State Of Telangana

M.A. Khadar Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana

V Vijayakanth Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Nalla Swamy, Vs The State of Telangana