Justice E.V. Venugopal heard a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging actions of bank officials and police. The managing pleader for the respondent revealed the petitioner had died, causing the proceedings to abate. The court dismissed the petition accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32es ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION NO: 31062 OF 2015
Between:
G.Venu Gopal Goud, S/o. Sri. G.Ramulu Goud Occ Business, R/o. H.No.1-1-85, Old Alwal, Secunderabad.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 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, or order or orders or direction one in the nature of writ of [/andamus, declaring the aclion of Respondents No.4 and 5 accepting the payment from the respondents No.2 and 3 towards repayment of loan amount
belonging to petitioner without verifying the title and original borrower is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Fundamental Rights (Freedom and Liberty) without jurisdiction and direct the Respondents No.4 and 5 to collect the loan amounts from the petitioner directly but not from the respondents No.2 and 3 and direct the police not to force the petitioner to deliver vacant physical possession to the respondents No.2 and 3 as the respondents No.6 and 7 have no jurisdiction to force the petitioner as it is in civil nature and to quash the FIR in Crime No.09i2015 of P.S.Madhapur, and to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.889/2014 on the file of Vl-lrletropolitan lvlagistrate, at [t/edchal, Ranga Reddy District and direct the respondents No.4 and 5 not to deliver anyphysical possession to the respondents No.2 and 3 without making any proper verification of the title over the ownership and the original borrower.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015( WPMP. NO:40155 OF 2015)
Petition under Section 15'1 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 Respondents No.6 and 7 toprovide protection to the freedom and Iiberty of the petitioner and subject matter of property of the petitioner not to handover to the respondents No.2 and 3 by the respondents No.4 and 5 pending disposal of this writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D.KANAKA SUNDAR
counser for the Respondents No.1, u*r, :#.t#?tk,isf,l"t FoR HoME
Counsel for the Respondents No.2to5:
The Court made the following: ORDER
\
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL IiRIT PETITION NO.31062 OF 2015
ORDER:
This Writ Petiticn is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Corlstitution of India seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in accepting the payment from respondent Nos.2 and 3 towqrds repayment of loan amount belonging to the petitioner without verifying the title and original borrower as illr:gal, arbitrary and in violation of Fundamental Rights (Freedom and Libcrty) r.vit.hout juriscliction and to direct the respondent Nos.4 and 5 t() collcct tirc loafl antounts lrom the petitioner directly but not from the respondcnt Nos.2 and 3 ancl direct the police not to iorce the petitioncr to dcli/er v.rr.::int physical pc.rssession to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as rcspondcnt Nos,5 and 7 have rro jurisdiciion to lorce the petitioner as it is in civil nature and quash FIR in Crime No.9 of 2015 of P.S. Madlral:rur and quas;tr the proceedings in CC No. 889 of 2Ol4 on the hle of 'trc lcarncd Vl tvletropolitan Magistrate at Mecichal, Ranga Recldy I)istrict and direct ttre respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to delivel any ph1-sical possession to Lhe respondent Nos.2 and 3 rvithout making any proper vcr-ificalion of t.hc title cver the ou,nership arrd the original b<;rrrrrvt: r'.
I)xs. I of 2
'"'1ff :%%y*-LllH$'."'r'n[r3:"'f '"#i'l]"ltat3orreransana at Hvderabad [OUIl 3. TwoCDCoPres' BSK GJP 1?r\ c..
HIGH COURT
DATED:011A9/2CI23
ORDER
WP.No.31062 of 2015
\ gL <br>n
CE )<br>a- 3
_{ uJ
,J) CJ Fc
uJ,
.,/)
t.a
F
v{ ^\
/
oc t<br>t
DISMISSING I-HE WRIT FETITION AS ABATED WITHOUT COSTS
@a*. vl to\as
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives in view of the petitioner's death.
Whether the proceedings below the court are closed as they had already been abated.
G. Venu Gopal Goud
State of Telangana
K. Geetha
P. Malla Reddy
State Bank of India
Station House Officer, Madhapur
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
